flowers you're kind of a piece of shit.

At 11/1/11 01:22 PM, Occluded wrote: flowers you're kind of a piece of shit.

Wow Occ, that's harsh.
I've seen him do his work on cam before, it's not traced, it's just extremely well referenced.

At 11/1/11 02:22 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote:

At 11/1/11 01:22 PM, Occluded wrote: flowers you're kind of a piece of shit.

Wow Occ, that's harsh.
I've seen him do his work on cam before, it's not traced, it's just extremely well referenced.

And Flowers never made a big secret about the fact that he is sometimes redrawing photos. He should have probably just mentioned the reference pics in the author's comments or something to avoid any confusion.

At 11/1/11 02:22 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote: I've seen him do his work on cam before, it's not traced, it's just extremely well referenced.

I know that, but the composition of the two pics are quite similar, too. The only bit I can see that is off is Sammy J's tie.

Eugh, I hope I haven't pulled out some heavily-referenced pics from the art portal in the same way.

At 11/1/11 03:44 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 11/1/11 02:22 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote: I've seen him do his work on cam before, it's not traced, it's just extremely well referenced.

I know that, but the composition of the two pics are quite similar, too. The only bit I can see that is off is Sammy J's tie.
Eugh, I hope I haven't pulled out some heavily-referenced pics from the art portal in the same way.

I'll refer you to what he posted in the Halloween thread.

flowers is legit.
If you're going to call someone out in the rudest way possible, maybe check with other people first, flowers has ben here a while after all.

Ahem...

Attention art peeps: SOMEBODY has no life.

At 11/1/11 05:07 PM, BlackmarketClock wrote: Attention art peeps: SOMEBODY has no life.

I post in the art forum, yet I post no art.
I am the 99%

At 11/1/11 02:21 PM, Flowers10 wrote: Wll you are kinda right about my pulpfiction pic, i first used a small underpainting then eyeballed the rest.

No he traced it. By his own admission. He also flipped the pic horizontally to try to hide that fact.

I'm only rude because he's a liar, and a thief, and cheat. I refer you to the Halloween thread. Just cause he's a reg don't make him right.

At 11/1/11 08:20 PM, Occluded wrote: I'm only rude because he's a liar, and a thief, and cheat. I refer you to the Halloween thread. Just cause he's a reg don't make him right.

You're right. Just because he's a reg, doesn't mean he deserves any special treatment.
And you're right Occ, I think maybe it might not have been completely fair for Flowers to have referenced a picture in order to create his Halloween contest submission. I think it's up to the judges discretion in order to determine how that factors in.
On the other side, I've seen Flowers do work. A lot of time on stickam, he puts what he's working on on cam, and I've seen he doesn't do any tracing, he just references. He's never been one to proclaim all work as his own, he's always let it known that he's referenced his work. Also, if he was tracing, I don't understand how he would have gotten the shading down.
So yeah, both sides may be a bit to blame. Flowers for heavily referencing his submission, Occ for blowing things a bit out of proportion.
Hopefully, we settle this issue and move past that.

You must be the owner and creator of the work you are submitting.

If this were anyone else. It would have been removed, and the artist probably pruned. Remember the stink liljim made, and everyone was furious he put himself above the law. Doing the same thing here is pretty hypocritical.

Even if you believe he didn't trace. It's not his work.

At 11/1/11 10:45 PM, Occluded wrote: If this were anyone else. It would have been removed, and the artist probably pruned. Remember the stink liljim made, and everyone was furious he put himself above the law. Doing the same thing here is pretty hypocritical.

But he didn't steal art and say it was his own, it was just referenced.
There are lots and lots and lots of referenced pieces in the art portal, by scouted artists too.
And with regards to the liljim thread, I didn't make a stink about it, so I'm not being hypocritical.

At 11/1/11 10:45 PM, Occluded wrote: You must be the owner and creator of the work you are submitting.

If this were anyone else. It would have been removed, and the artist probably pruned. Remember the stink liljim made, and everyone was furious he put himself above the law. Doing the same thing here is pretty hypocritical.

Even if you believe he didn't trace. It's not his work.

I don't know about you but I've been suspicious about flowers for quite some time now. I just didn't say anything because I didn't want to risk looking like an idiot with no concrete evidence whatsoever. I noticed because I thought his images were too "photorealistic" something just off putting about it. Especially this picture of Tom wherein the face looks suspiciously strange. As if it's too perfect.

He might be a regular here but I don't think we should treat him too nicely, since a crime is still a crime regardless of who committed it. I was really hoping my suspicions were wrong, but sadly no. Anyway yeah, I'm disappointed.

At 11/1/11 11:16 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote: But he didn't steal art and say it was his own, it was just referenced.

At 11/1/11 02:21 PM, Flowers10 wrote: My name is under it, it is myne.

And he's totally right. Without indicating what he did putting it under his name is claiming it as his. But even if he did make it clear. It isn't his image by the best stretch. Dogmatic reproduction ( tracing or otherwise ) is still copying.

Dear Occ,

He's explained in the past that he uses grids and uses very heavy reference to the original photo. Which isn't really my cup of tea either. I think when you make a piece of art look exactly like the photograph, there's that certain feeling of expression that's completely lost. But he is entitled to do whatever he wants. He's not stealing, he's not tracing. So, shut the fuck up is what I guess I'm trying to get at. No one should get THAT bent out of shape because an artist uses heavy references when drawing. That's THEIR choice, and you can't do anything about it. I understand where you're coming from, and I don't really like it either. But jesus christ, you're raging on this guy like he ran over your dog! He's never done anything to you, in fact, he seems pretty nice and just wants to be a part of the newgrounds community. But people like you ruin that. Calm the fuck down, bro.

Love,
Jeesh

P.S., Don't you just love those moments where the art forum turns into a piss fight?

At 11/2/11 02:13 AM, jeeshwa123 wrote: P.S., Don't you just love those moments where the art forum turns into a piss fight?

I'm ok with these moments, so long as we don't resort to needlessly aggressive language, like

At 11/2/11 02:13 AM, jeeshwa123 wrote: shut the fuck up is what I guess I'm trying to get at

I'm still on the fence, since I have watched flowers paint these on cam, and if I didn't take it down then I wouldn't take it down now. But I know I have moved pics for almost similar reasons.

We've spoken about grid stuff before concerning StudioGissele, who also uses grid. Some stuff was kicked to user page, some wasn't.

Pretty sad right now that the skill of photorealism is being reduced to bullshit and copying.
What the fuck difference does it make whether he's using his own reference photo, or 1 he found on the internet.
Whether he changes up the poses is up to him, and whether he wins this contest or whatever else happens is up to the judges.

I have had a long discussion with occluded about this issue and I think there is a lot going on here and it's quite a bit more complicated than some poeple would present it.

as I explained it to flowers:

There is the point of the artistic merit of the pic (which is limited by the fact that it's heavily referenced), but that doesnt make flowers a thief or tracer.
Then there is the point of wether or not it's morally/artistically permissable to use such heavy referencing and use that tattoo. And when something becomes your work rather than someone else's.
And there is the point about wether or not flowers should have made it more clear what his reference was, and where he got the tattoo.
And then there is the question about wether flowers saying "it has my name under it, so it's mine" is actually him denying that he used reference etc, or a miscommunication about what makes it "his" work as opposed to another artists work.

The interesting thing is: if using heavy reference and the stock tattoo isn't theft in itself; denying that you used them can't make it thef, something doesn't become theft because you lie about owning it.
Another point to complicate matters is that you submitted it to a contest. Then again, if something isn't wrong to begin with, entering it to a contest shouldn't make it wrong, and vice versa.

As you can tell, there are a lot of separate issues getting mixed together here and I can't say I have a convincing answer to those separate matters let alone the issue of flowers10.
My intuition is that while flowers' drawing for the halloween contest is a legitimate piece of art, he should have made it more clear that it was heavily referenced and that he used the stock tattoo (then again; where to draw the line? How about textures?). I.E. this doesn't make him a thief or a cheater (as I don't think he was intentionally hiding the fact). The fact that it was always clear to me that flowers heavily referenced his stuff probably influences my opinion in this matter.

Maybe it should be made a rule that referenced drawings should always have a mention of the reference (or link) in the description? This way anyone viewing it can decide for themselves what the artistic merit of a referenced drawing is, and it might help the art mods maintain consistency.

At 11/2/11 10:10 AM, J-qb wrote: Maybe it should be made a rule that referenced drawings should always have a mention of the reference (or link) in the description? This way anyone viewing it can decide for themselves what the artistic merit of a referenced drawing is, and it might help the art mods maintain consistency.

Rule, no. It's hard enough to get into the art portal as it is, people shouldn't feel alienated by too many rules.

Guideline or recommendation, yes.

At 11/2/11 10:21 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Guideline or recommendation, yes.

you could tell poeple to include a link to their reference instead of pushing stuff back to their userpage is what I mean.

At 11/2/11 10:27 AM, J-qb wrote:

At 11/2/11 10:21 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Guideline or recommendation, yes.

you could tell poeple to include a link to their reference instead of pushing stuff back to their userpage is what I mean.

I'd rather not do either.
I'd rather leap into action when something is stolen or inappropriately tagged. I don't want to push stuff back to their page, since in their mind it's not a sketch, and I don't want to send a PM to somebody saying "whoopsy, you've haven't followed rule 22: write down your references. Please add them to your comments" since that pisses people off.

I'd rather let people know it's an etiquette to note down any references, so that you can avoid instances where people think you're hiding something to your advantage, and get annoyed. Like this situation.

Just so I make this clear, I don't mind Flowers using references. Lots of people use references.
I thought the problem was how close the painting meets the original, and whether the image was traced/gridded?

In a way, I'm a bit glad we've had this discussion, as it is an issue that has been brought up in the past, and we can sort this out now.
Also, I'm glad that with this one, there are actual well thought out responses and points, as oppose to the rage and piss and shit that's happened in the past.

At 11/2/11 11:19 AM, big-jonny-13 wrote: In a way, I'm a bit glad we've had this discussion, as it is an issue that has been brought up in the past, and we can sort this out now.
Also, I'm glad that with this one, there are actual well thought out responses and points, as oppose to the rage and piss and shit that's happened in the past.

ditto.

As far as the crediting the reference thing, you'd think that people would just do that in the first place. You should just link to the reference out of common courtesy to the original piece. I think at that point, everyone should be happy and stop caring so much. It is kind of an issue though as far as the whole "where is the line drawn" though, I will give you that.

Turkey, the language was because that shit pisses me off. If you're gonna trash someone, at least direct it at them instead of whining to everyone else. 'Sides, if he was that adamant about it, he could have just sent you a PM or something, amiright? :P

I just swear, simple as that. It's how I speak normally, how I'll think, and how I'll think while typing.
I mean no insults at anyone unless I actually use an insult.

That said, if there was some kind of handy message, some sort of tutorial that popped up for someone that was new to the art portal that gave them tips and shit.

At 11/2/11 04:54 PM, M-Vero wrote: I just swear, simple as that. It's how I speak normally, how I'll think, and how I'll think while typing.
I mean no insults at anyone unless I actually use an insult.

That said, if there was some kind of handy message, some sort of tutorial that popped up for someone that was new to the art portal that gave them tips and shit.

Uh, what? I would like to know this story better if you allow it. Please elaborate.

At 11/2/11 10:10 AM, J-qb wrote: (then again; where to draw the line? How about textures?).

When you look on, say, deviantART for textures the creators of those textures usually say "You are allowed to use this as long as you credit me."

So not crediting them would probably be considered stealing in my book.

At 11/2/11 04:58 PM, Fifty-50 wrote:

At 11/2/11 04:54 PM, M-Vero wrote: That said, if there was some kind of handy message, some sort of tutorial that popped up for someone that was new to the art portal that gave them tips and shit.

Uh, what? I would like to know this story better if you allow it. Please elaborate.

I think it was ToaS who once had the idea of an automated message that is sent as soon as someone uploads his first piece of art. Explaining the scouting system for example. But I am not sure how much info such message should contain and if it's a good idea to go into too much details, since people could be inclined to skip the message if the text wall is too big.

I think far too many of you have jumped the shark here.

The reason tracing is bad. Isn't just because it's a lazy shortcut. Being lazy is only really bad for the artist who's doing it and doesn't really hurt anyone else (unless it's a competition for obvious reasons). Fuck I'd even go so far as to say tracing can be a great learning tool. As is gridding.

The reason tracing is wrong (and even griding would be in this instance) isn't the laziness, but the theft. That photo, and that still. Aren't his art. Would any of you like it if someone copied your art (by any means) changed the color, added horns and posted it under his own name? Even if he repainted by hand every inch purely by sight?

No you fucking wouldn't. You'd swear at him until the cows came home. You'd be furious.

That photo he copied for the contest is someone else's art. Would you like that done to your art? Anyone defending this is denegrating the work of the other artist. I can see the theoretical grey area here a bit. I've used photos in my paintings for texture. Not lately but I have in the past, and really see no problem with it. Particularly if they're your pics. You don't even enter the grey area then. What should define this grey area is whether or not the artist using those techniques has sucessfully created a piece that is greater than the sum of it's parts. Different and original. How can you possibly look at that contest entry, and not see the other artist's work first?

All of you who said you thought it was obvious he was referencing were clearly seeing the other artist's work.

Here's a simple test. If you can look at the original, and using only words describe perfectly the modifications it's probably not original. I'm not saying that's a lock tight benchmark for what is and isn't original. I'm just saying if the concept confuses you maybe that will help you get clarity.

That still of Pulp Fiction he traced (by his own admission) isn't his art. You want to do it for practice fine. Post in in your thread and site your source. Whatever. The portal is expressly (one of the few written rules) for original art. I don't get what's grey area about this? He want's to make photo real art. Then take some fucking photos.

At 11/2/11 08:04 PM, Occluded wrote: Would any of you like it if someone copied your art (by any means) changed the color, added horns and posted it under his own name?
No you fucking wouldn't. You'd swear at him until the cows came home. You'd be furious.

That's where you are wrong; I wouldn't. I'd make sure poeple got to see my original art and let them decide for themselves whose work it is.

All of you who said you thought it was obvious he was referencing were clearly seeing the other artist's work.

exactly, which allows us to still value the work for what it is.
Why can't you just let poeple decide for themselves what they do and do not consider someone's art? Somehow you seem to think you have a monopoly on this. Saying flowers is a tracing, cheating thief is exactly the same as flowers saying that the art is purely his. It is telling other poeple what they should or should not consider art.
I think that we can safely say that our intuitions/opinions as to what amounts to original art differ. My problem is that you won't let other poeple form their own opinion.
In the robot day art contest, someone posted a heavily referenced pic without including a link to his reference. I posted just that in the thread: that he heavily referenced another pic. The artist in question replied that it wasn't his intention to hide his reference or anything, and the whole issue was solved with that. The piece was excluded from the contest cause it was not an original character (which was in the rules, and the artist had apparently overlooked) and there were no hard feelings.
I'm not saying I'm the grand example that you should all model your behaviour to, just illustrating that there are other ways to solve these issues.

At 11/2/11 08:21 PM, J-qb wrote: That's where you are wrong; I wouldn't. I'd make sure poeple got to see my original art and let them decide for themselves whose work it is.

But that artist isn't here to show us is he? I find it appalling you could assume consent on his behalf.

All of you who said you thought it was obvious he was referencing were clearly seeing the other artist's work.

exactly, which allows us to still value the work for what it is.

Only if you know. Do you think everyone who sees that piece is informed enough enough to adequately determine that?

Why can't you just let poeple decide for themselves what they do and do not consider someone's art? Somehow you seem to think you have a monopoly on this. Saying flowers is a tracing, cheating thief is exactly the same as flowers saying that the art is purely his. It is telling other poeple what they should or should not consider art.

Then anyone can say anything is art. And I could say the mona lisa is my art merely by indicating that it is.

I think that we can safely say that our intuitions/opinions as to what amounts to original art differ. My problem is that you won't let other poeple form their own opinion.

You have to use definitions that are universal. The most universal. Most encompassing, agreed upon, and thorough definition is the right one. You don't get to define your own words. Your words aren't for you to define. They useful only in making yourself understood. With words what is popular IS what's right. That is the only way they work. They aren't truth. They merely describe it.

I'm not saying I'm the grand example that you should all model your behaviour to, just illustrating that there are other ways to solve these issues.

Jesus would have indeed handled this differently.