Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
who has time to create original art when you're watching all the animes
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Artist spotlighted by NYT and Vice is plagairizing anime and manga
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
This thread is insane what have I stumbed on.
chekhonte
Member
Lichtenstein is ok because he reproduced images of people nobody cared about.
Fulminator
Member
Nothing really wrong with tracing in general, lots of professional artists do it. It's just kind of shitty that this person does a 1:1 copy
Although I don't really think it's that big a deal if they're collaging multiple pieces together. More egregious things have been done in the past. The original artists should get credit and probably a portion of the sales too though.
Although I don't really think it's that big a deal if they're collaging multiple pieces together. More egregious things have been done in the past. The original artists should get credit and probably a portion of the sales too though.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
Yeah, nice one dude. I quoted the picture from someone else in the thread. And I was loling because it looked like the definition of hipster on instagram. I don't subscribe to that shit at all. I don't find her attractive.
I don't see what her appearance has to do with the actual conversation at all, but maybe you do, and every other poster saying stuff like "white knighting" and also bringing up the gender of what's going on.
And people became apparently "appalled" when I said this kind of feels like gamergate. "It's about ethics in giving props on instagram".
Always-honest
Banned
Gaf and art. Always great.
chekhonte
Member
It's really just people with concrete thinking. i.e the general public.
Vital Tundra
Member
Yo its not even a good trace! lmao.
PdotMichael
Banned
It's a stupid killer argument and a cheap attempt of whiteknighting a talentless hack because some people aren't nice to her or her works.
It's cute that you just "happen" to keep missing posts in this thread where she was selling other people's art.
I'm sure it's time for you move your goalposts again.
Fulminator
Member
Tracing isn't always as easy as it seems, especially for complicated images that are at a small scale
Well, that's rather all very depressing.
And interesting. Would you happen to know of any longform articles that delves into the "inside baseball" aspect of art and the art world?
Now there is evidence she is directly selling other people's work as her own.
What new goalpost/excuse do you have now?
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Are people still saying this?
clearly sarcasm.
This thread is weird.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
But I have addressed her selling other peoples art.
At first I thought she's literally just taking peoples art, and just selling it digitally.
But she's using oil painting on canvas right? Transforming the medium and actually painting it.
And going by her storefront, I'm saying it, some of it pops! You can definitely see the references, and like I had already posted, the stuff on her storefront has accredited to Sailor Moon etc.
I mean, I'd imagine it must be OK to do, otherwise they would of slapped her with lawsuits already, right? Cease and desist?
I can even do this in reverse for you all. Look at this talented pixel artist, and for only 300 bucks it can be yours too!
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
People freaked out about LHOOQ but now it's considered an important piece of art.
Doesn't matter if all you do is draw a dick in Adam's hand on The Creation of Adam. You've transformed the work and it's now new and now yours.
I literally linked the comic panel referenced here that Roy stole from and made millions off earlier.
.jpg)
The 2nd is Roy's copy that became famous and had tones of sales and prints.
Ehhhh......., I hope there's nothing bad out there about some of the other artists I follow like Loish or Gabriel Picolo, would suck to stop following their work.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think there's a difference between purposefully defacing a famous work of art and taking stuff from people that aren't (as) famous and hoping no one notices.
Even from the collage, I would have assumed that everything that wasn't recognizable (Bart, Hello Kitty, Gundam) was something that she drew herself.
Krauser Kat
Member
its more then that. He took the context away from the art.
recreated it in a different medium, and gave it more context.
Its not any different that soup cans.
He should have at least bought that guy a drink though. At least warhols art drove sales of those cans pretty hard. no one was going around trying to buy the comic that guy drew.
Wickerbasket
Member
The term will always exist until desperate men stop feeling the need to come to the rescue of women they deem in trouble. Even one's so clearly guilty such as the topic of this thread.
No, she's not. In the screenshot provided, it was a copy-paste of the artwork with brighter contrast.
Do you know how much lawsuits cost? Your average artist doesn't have the money to fight her theft. And if you assume she comes from money (which is most likely the case, as features cost money) than there's a high chance she has a team of lawyers ready to tie up the courts and cost thousands.
chekhonte
Member
I was sarcastically referencing somebody else's post. Or as this thread would say I stole somebody else's post with out reference.
Yes because all the context is the same. Especially since the person in question has stated that everything on the internet is fair game for her to copy.
Now nice of you do not directly address me tho.
Stellar arguments
I think the problem is that Bart,Gundam and Wiki are pop stuff. Mixing it with obscure paintings makes it more dishonest, like how am I suppose to know what the girl using white space as hair in the top left is from.
MrMysterio
Member
Yeah, pretty dire. Hito Steyerl, a German artist, writes quite a lot about art + corruption. Here's a long article about art as a currency: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/76/69...art-contemporary-art-and-derivative-fascisms/
A little bit off-topic. But still kind of a plea to not hate the player, hate the game
PdotMichael
Banned
Trying to kill a discussion about someone's work with comparing people in this thread with a movement which are insulting, harassing and threatening women... and you are shocked about the word "whiteknighting"?
Herr Schwarz
Banned
Everything she does on her gallery seems to be oil paintings at this point. I thought on that message chain that i saw the picture of the messaged said "i want to paint this"
If it's not an oil painting she done herself. And she just printed it onto a canvas. Hells yeah that's a problem. because that's grafting. That's not re-rendering it using your skill as an artist.
chekhonte
Member
Everything posted on the internet is fair game to appropriate. That goes for anything displayed in public or reproduced to begin with like art you see in a museum, art reproduced in a poster you saw or art reproduced in a manga or comic and everything you've ever seen reproduced by a computer or photograph. This is how it should be. Nobody should own the idea of a specific image.
Jesus Christ.
At this point, I see little to no point in continuing this discussion, as you have again moved the goalposts. Have fun, I guess.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I disagree. Art, once released into the wild is fair game for transformation. Regardless of how popular it is or who made it.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
You understand there's a difference between printing something out, to actually painting it yourself, right?
yeah that's the word, transformation!
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
But when you copy Bart Simpson, it's clear to the viewer what is happening. No one would think that you are trying to pass off Bart Simpson as your original idea. That doesn't apply when what you're copying is so obscure that no one else would recognize it.
You seem to have, again, forgotten the screenshot of her selling a copy-paste of another artists work. Can you prove that she painted it? That it wasn't just a print?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Would you say the same for literature.
Warhol could do it because he was basically the first one doing it and wanted to give a message through his work: in the age of reproducibility the old notion of art is dead, art is now a consumable product. These guys are just in for a quick buck.
By the way, that's Escaping Criticism by Pere Borell del Caso, a famous trompe l'oeil painting (1874):
Did you look at that link?
http://samrolfes.tumblr.com/post/90487103391/look-at-this-shit-hayes-ripping-off-hillock
She actually did take someones art from Instagram and then sold it without even notifying the artist
By the way, that's Escaping Criticism by Pere Borell del Caso, a famous trompe l'oeil painting (1874):
What's the line between theft and transformatory work?
The Mona Lisa is public domain.
Thirsty Gaf has no shame
teruterubozu
Member
The music industry with its shit-ton of lawyers don't see it that way.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I don't think it's the transformer's responsibility to be concerned about the popularity or lack-there-of of the art they transform.
Morally and ideally in today's world they would include a statement of recognition for the original art they transformed, but I don't believe that they would be doing anything wrong by transforming it in the first place.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
That's true, but when your entire body of work as an artist, has been to copy other peoples art and transform it into oil painting.
Like if that's what your known for. I think it'd be a fair bet the buyer is going to view anything the artist has done as "done before". In some medium or another.
As that's her operating procedure in everything she's done it seems. And for £5k a painting I'd assume you'd want to know about the artist before you buy. It seems pretty apparent.
No I can't prove it wasn't just a print. Which is why I said, if it was just a print out of someone else's work, that'd be clearly wrong. I don't have a problem saying that, because it would be.
But going by all the oil painting she seems to be known for doing (all of her storefront is oil painting on canvas) and going by the her message saying "can i paint this" I just assumed it was a painting...
Why, can you prove it was a straight print? Because if you can, sure that's hella wrong!
I would be in total agreement, if this person is just reselling peoples art directly, copy pasting it, and printing it onto a canvas digitally. That'd be some shameful shit.
She's transforming digital art into oil paintings though by the looks, which is different in my mind anyway.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
There's that too.
Chainsawkitten
Member
Hell no. Not without giving credit. You use something by someone else, you give credit.
Transformation is great. I've done it myself. But when I do I give credit to the originals. Attribution is what separates a tribute from plagiarism.
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
I think the logic will be "well she said she painted it, do you know how hard it is to copy oil painting?"
Then move on to the next goal post
Similar threads
- Locked