This sort of thing has always been around, people have always debated over which is better, and some heated discussions have often occured, with both sides having some good points, but I've come to realize a few things..
Just a minor point in response, here. Pretty much all of the comic rips I've done in the past three or four years have been partly original. My backgrounds are almost always either original, or taken from some other area of the comic that I think looks better. Often, I use different parts of the comic even for the foreground. For instance, there was a Calvin and Hobbes pic that I did a couple months back. Calvin is taken from one part of the book, hobbes from another, the background from another, and the sidewalk from still another picture. In addition, many parts of Calvin and Hobbes (expressions, limb placements) are modified however I want them to be. I don't really know what my whole point is. I just wanted to say this :).
Well, rather than taking a background or foreground from another part of the comic, why not just make one up :) .. i just think its more interesting to see what someone else would have as a background to (just as an example) a calvin and hobbes peice.. the possibilities are endless, yet many artists like to limit themeselves by copying something already done.. i dunno, might be just me, but i find that somewhat odd. :)
I used to be religiously AGAINST comic rips. In Teklordz circa 1995-97, it was practically a sin to draw anything other than a 100% original...and I adhered to that. But even then, I was blown away by a well-done comic pic every time I looked at a new pack, especially Union, Acid and Ice. Over time, my originals took on more of a comic book style to them, especially the shading. Ever notice how on a comic rip, the black outlines seem more solid and the colors blend together so well? That's what *I* thought anyway, and soon I was drawing comic characters here and there. I'm one of those poor bastards who can't do decent proportions and can't copy anything off a printed page, so my "rips" are pics of comic characters in a pose/scene of my own creation. And I certainly get inspired by comics like Spawn, Ascension or The Darkness.
Am I entertained? That's what I ask when I view an ansi. With comic rips, much, much more often than not, I leave dissatisfied because they lack intrigue, imagination and inspiration.
about this whole comic ripping thing. i'm not sure about a lot of artists, but i came from the ansi school where well, it was all comic rips. i looked up to comic rip gods such as somms, and master ken. but i also took a liking to other comic rip masters like aphex twin and eerie (i'm aware of his originals). but people like aphex, and eerie give comic ripping a good name. chances are, the pic won't look much like the original. not to mention people like kamikazee. i heard about taking pride in the art, i take pride in all the ansi i rip out of comic books. sure, you're being creative when you do an original. but honestly, i'd rather see a really good comic rip, than some shitty original. i'm not saying that all originals are shitty, but almost anyone can do something straight out of their heads. so for every one good original pic, i can show you 10 that are just as good, if not better.
When I look at an ansi, I usually look almost entirely at the technical skill displayed in it... How smooth the shading looks (although perhaps "smooth" is the wrong word), that kind of stuff. If an original has really good technical qualities, I'll like it. If a comic rip has really good technical qualities, ditto. I don't really care whether it's a rip or not. I feel pretty much the same about all art... When I look at "Three Distinct Shades of Grey" (yes, there is such a painting, and it's in the Ottawa Art Gallery), it does NOT impress me. It's just three vertical bars of grey, as the name suggests. But when I look at Michaelangelo... He impresses the hell out of me, even though he worked from models some of the time, and the guy who did that Grey painting sure as hell didn't.
we're dealing with ansi here and i think an important distinction has to be made... comic rips can and are good ansi... but they are not and never will be good art.
Diez: Could you clarify that last part of your message? The "aesthetical -> ethical -> whole" bit. Is that just a little tag to stick on the end of your messages, or does it actually have relevance and meaning?
Well.. guess all I can say is comic rips are fn when you go back and look at the comic and see what the person did or didnt "rip". To try and visualize the pic the way they did when it was drawn. Thats all.
I agree and disagree with Diez.
Also, this is complete bullshit:
count zero, that was just a little silly reference to soren kierkegaard and is prolly dead wrong. he saw most of society as aesthetes, and the 'good' people as ethical men... but he felt you had to take an irrational step into the unknown to be... something. i dont really know.
hal's a smart smart man.
Filth is a smart man. :)
First of all, I'm a somewhat firm believe in original art.. everything i've drawn has been of my own creation, and, other than some joints, i'm pretty sure i'm going to keep it that way, this doesnt mean, however, that i'm totally opposed to comic ripping. Many of my favorite peices have been ripped from comics, so i'm not against anything.
Anyhow, I feel that comic ripped peices, even though the artist's own style is added to the pic, to give it some personal touch, just arent all that interesting.. sure, proportions (sp) might be great, shading is excellent and it flows together nicely, but its still (for the most part) the same old tired characters that are getting drawn. I think some really great comic rips could be more obscure peices, or maybe the character, in a completly original setting, created by the artist. We're artists here, we can create whatever we feel like with something so little as aciddraw, but we choose to keep on copying the same old characters? It's somewhat baffling. :)
Many people claim original pics are harder, and any other number of things. But to me, it doesnt make sense.. the only added advantage of the comic, is you have a reference to go by, but a reference is easily created. A quick sketch on paper of a rough outline, and you're set.. all the major details are done through aciddraw (or whatever drawer an artist uses) anyway, such as small proportion changes, or even some major re-working. I find it a lot of fun getting to create my own peices of art, rather than seeing how close i can get something to match to an original Stan Lee.
Of course, it all boils down to fun. If an artist who commonly comic rips, and is having a blast doing it, who are we to judge? As long as everyone has fun in their art creation, everything else takes a back seat.
By Count zero on Monday, November 30, 1998 - 08:18 am:
By Luminous on Monday, November 30, 1998 - 12:37 pm:
By Inazone on Monday, November 30, 1998 - 01:54 pm:
Are comic rips less artistic than originals? I don't think so. Any lack of imagination is usually compensated for with overall technical precision and aesthetic appeal. If you can draw a nice, polished original, I'd take that over a poorly drawn comic rip any day. Ultimately, it still comes down to quality. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and bad art is still bad art, original or otherwise. Don't rip a comic unless you're doing justice to the original, OK?
By Nitnatsnoc on Tuesday, December 1, 1998 - 02:07 pm:
I simply do not say 'wow' when I see a picture of Spawn, no matter how appopriate the proportions are or how dramatic the lighting effect is.
Original work, conversely, usually come from creative minds, and hence offer some sort of proof that at least a tiny bit of thought went into the pic.
These issues are foremost in my mind; in discussing comic rips vs. original work, one could argue on and on about the actual principle of copying, but I am more concerned with the end result.
If I see a rip of Spawn, I will cuss at the artist not because s/he copied it, but because it's Spawn. Similarly, if the artist drew Spawn without looking at a picture of Spawn, I'd still dismiss the pic because the shockingly bare imagination is too much to take. If I see, say, Spawn wearing a chef's hat making a birthday cake, whether or not the artist copied it, I'll probably still like it because it's actually DIFFERENT from what we see all the time.
That's probably the reason I draw what I draw. Most of the time I don't do original work. But when I do copy, I make sure I'm copying something that's a bit more mind-pleasing.
My shading and proportions will never stun anyone, but god damn it, I take pride in the SUBJECT matter I choose.
By Filth on Tuesday, December 1, 1998 - 09:28 pm:
By Count zero on Wednesday, December 2, 1998 - 08:07 am:
By Dieznyik on Sunday, December 6, 1998 - 02:43 am:
so-called 'original art' is only a step above in originality beyond comic book rips, but still tends to be good ansi and poor art. drawing your own comic book characters carries very little meaning. drawing your own floating head, unhappy visage, or nekkid chick is also more than likely without meaning. abstract art can sometimes fall into this category in the case when artists just slap stuff around on their canvas of choice. little communicated meaning, but some great originality.
highest in both meaning and originality is representative art (in my opinion)... the ease of communication should be proportionate to the complexity of the concept being communicated. elements should ideally serve a purpose and contribute to the overall harmony of a work.
people can draw good art in grade 9, but it seems that little of the scene has bothered to advance to any kind of new dimension... just fleshing out the limits of 'originality' without concern for meaning, in most cases...
but you're only concerned with such a thing when u are concerned with art AND ansi... for most, its just ansi that matters. and thats allright. just a little boring.
aesthetical -> ethical -> whole
By Count zero on Monday, December 7, 1998 - 07:49 am:
By WhiteTrash on Wednesday, December 9, 1998 - 03:06 am:
By Halaster on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 09:25 pm:
Agreement - Good art generally has some sort of cohesion and synchronicity throughout, unless you're creating a peace that's meant to emphasize dissonance, chaos or discontinuity. :)
Here's where I disagree - A well constructed ANSI, based on other people's characters, CAN evoke a mood, CAN be cohesive and CAN be moving. I site my winter opus ANSI as example. I also think that hal-eth2.ans has a very airy, ethereal quality to it that the original pic didn't have.
It's all about cardinality, not absolutes. Original artwork gets credit for being original. At the same time, though, Monet did base his paintings off of real-world objects. If you want to get down to it, unless you're deaf, blind, nasally and tactile impaired, NOTHING you do will be totally "original" in terms of invention ..
Originality is about blending, it's about twisting the outside world through the lense of YOUR eyes, of YOUR mind. A well-twisted comic rip is good art.
Boop!
Halaster/Fire
By RetsalaH on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 09:28 pm:
"the ease of communication should be proportionate to the complexity of the concept being communicated"
Were this statement true, art would become more difficult to understand as complexity increased. While this *can* be true, it doesn't have to.
INCREDIBLY complex ideas can be communicated VERY simply. A picture is worth a thousand words, right? The best poetry captures a novel's worth of feeling within 6 lines.
retsalaH
By Dieznyik on Friday, December 11, 1998 - 09:56 pm:
well hal we're talking about a few seperate levels of art here... let me see if i can be coherent =)
when im talking about ansi i think of it in two levels... theres ansi, and then theres art (where ansi is just another something in the whole wide range of everything artistic)... good ansi takes a lot of forms, some of which is comic ripping. but im more 'artistic' than most at times, and my likes are defined by my interests in art.
i just dont like art that lies very much... or... ok, this one is a bit tricky. copying something you see can never be done with perfection. manifesting something in art from your mind (expressing YOURSELF) can be done perfectly... but of course, thats not instant. it takes a lot to express yourself right... and i mean, thats what im learning right now... how to get my ideas into ansi efficiently, and not losing any packets on the way... these ideas arent single static concepts, but you can artistically speak a perfect sentance with something that is self-generated.
as for stuff coming from your head being unoriginal... its a different originality i guess. you cant lie about the lies in your mind, you know? if you have a thought in your head thats false (say, that baboons have three legs) and you draw that and express that perfectly, thats not a lie. thats a truth for your situation... this isnt to say art has to be CORRECT or ACCURATE... merely honest, if possible.
its an ideal. i fuck around a lot with my art... im not some fucking machine... but like, it would be nice to have the innate power to express what goes on in my head as best i can...
as for things promoting complexity... i suppose i meant understanding in the first portion, not communication... but then again, who knows. its been a while.
By Filth on Sunday, December 13, 1998 - 10:00 pm:
but when it comes down to it, everyone has to remember that old quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
By Halaster on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 12:39 pm:
er .. Diez: I didn't really follow a lot of that, but I see a few of the points you're making (although they don't really relate to what I was saying, I don't think.)
I agree that lots of dilligence and technical skill are required to accurately move ideas from your head to paper, or to the screen or whatever. The "losing packets" analogy is a good one.
But art, at least for me, isn't really about bringing ideas from my head to the outside world. That's one motivation, for sure, but it's not the whole equation. Art is pretty intuitive for me, very improvisational and instinctual. I get dragged along .. there's not much thought involved. ..
:)
Anyway - Filth is right.
Plus, here's another idea - If I rip good comic art perfectly, it's still good comic art, right? :) It's just not *my* good art. :) Heheh .. a minor point, but an interesting one.
Hal