• 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

chekhonte

chekhonte

Member
Fulminator said:
because a building is a structural object that exists in three dimensional space. taking a photo or making a painting of that building does not recreate that building in the world, just a 2d representation of the building. So you are not really plagiarizing the building because what you have created or captured does not meet the requirements necessary to be considered a "copy" of the building.

it's probably debatable, but I think you are just making a representation of the building rather than the building itself.

This is different from copying something in a 2 dimensional space that only exists in a 2 dimensional space imo



i mean of course you can do it, but isn't that basically what this artist is under fire for
Click to expand...

ah I thought you meant legally can you do it. Not that a bunch of anonymous internet people might get mad at you if you do it.
 
A

AtomskEater

Member
Herr Schwarz said:
I mean regardless of what the image that is being lifted, it's still being re-rendered into an oil painting by the artists hand right? Or what's the method here? Apply the background, then get a full body image of the anime character, stencil an outline lightly onto the canvas, then fill in the gaps with paint?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's actually quite common to sketch very lightly onto a canvas to transfer a more complicated design before painting, there are different ways to do it. Some discussed in this thread here.
Video of an example here.
Another way to do it.

And yes, in reference to an earlier post, it is quit possible to print a painting, then go over it with a brush and paint to bring depth and such to it (so that it looks more like a hand-done painting, many people will notice a lack of brush stokes and the flatness of the painting if they see it IRL). This technique is actually the cause of a fair amount of people misunderstanding if they're getting an original painting instead of one that's been printed and painted over slightly.
It's typically referred to as giclee embellishment (a giclee being a inkjet print of art).
An art auction company called Park West sometimes gets into trouble over not being clear that much of their paintings are mass printed embellishments and not originals or one of a kind. It's not impossible or even particularly difficult to do this if you have the means and time.

Just because her website says these are oil paintings does not mean she is incapable of copying them over, or that they aren't mostly printings that she's painted sections of.
 
U

UrbanRats

Member
In her defense i'll say that some people are really overly obsessed with the idea of denouncing (supposed) copying, to the point where even somewhat similar ideas will get flagged with the label, or in extreme cases, reference material will be seen as copying or "cheating" in some way.
A lot of these people not understanding how drawing actually works, too.

So that can definitely become obnoxious.

This case is somewhat different though, from what i can see.
Falls more in the debate about how transformative art has to be, to become original.
On her website, i found some of the paintings at least somewhat interesting.
 
H

Herr Schwarz

Banned
UrbanRats said:
In her defense i'll say that some people are really overly obsessed with the idea of denouncing (supposed) copying, to the point where even somewhat similar ideas will get flagged with the label, or in extreme cases, reference material will be seen as copying or "cheating" in some way.
A lot of these people not understanding how drawing actually works, too.

So that can definitely become obnoxious.

This case is somewhat different though, from what i can see.
Falls more in the debate about how transformative art has to be, to become original.
On her website, i found some of the paintings at least somewhat interesting.
Click to expand...

I thought some of her shit popped.

But from what some of the more experienced artists are saying in this thread. That it's more of a glorified exercise in coloring in.

I thought she'd be going at it free hand which takes away some of the magic slightly to the point it's more about design. than art.
 
U

ultracal31

You don't get to bring friends.
AtomskEater said:
Yes, it's actually quite common to sketch very lightly onto a canvas to transfer a more complicated design before painting.
Video of an example here.
Another way to do it.

And yes, in reference to an earlier post, it is quit possible to print a painting, then go over it with a brush and paint to bring depth and such to it (so that it looks more like a hand-done painting, many people will notice a lack of brush stokes and the flatness of the painting if they see it IRL). This technique is actually the cause of a fair amount of people misunderstanding if they're getting an original painting instead of one that's been printed and painted over slightly.
It's typically referred to as giclee embellishment (a giclee being a inkjet print of art).
An art auction company called Park West sometimes gets into trouble over not being clear that much of their paintings are mass printed embellishments and not originals or one of a kind. It's not impossible or even particularly difficult to do this if you have the means and time.

Just because her website says these are oil paintings does not mean she is incapable of copying them over, or that they aren't mostly printings that she's painted sections of.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that with an example of this type of printer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5VXuExej8-I

I'd say based on her prices and volume amount of what she sells I wouldn't be surprised she just straights up prints them as is using those printers
 
V

Vigamox

Member
Kaizer said:
Oh damn, I follow him on Instagram, he's one of my favorite artists. Had no idea, so he used to go by the name kr0npr1nz?
Click to expand...
Yep, he changed his name after this plagiarism accusation surfaced, probably to distance himself away from it.

Chainsawkitten said:
Looking through his DeviantArt, he doesn't actually try to pass those off as original art (though I haven't looked at every thing from that image). They're put in a "Non-original" gallery folder and he states whether something is based on something else. Although in at least one case of using a photo for reference (left side, third one from bottom) he just said that he used a photo as reference, without specifying the artist / linking to the specific photo, which I think he absolutely should. But he wasn't trying to pass them off as his own original work. (Unless he's edited in that later and it didn't originally say that. I don't know how/if you can tell on DeviantArt.)
Click to expand...
Those pieces did not have those statements before, which was the problem. I was looking at the thread from 4chan the day the accusations started and IIRC, they were edited in afterward.
 
L

LumpOfCole

Member
Is it art if I screencap the Twitter or Instagram page of @jeanettehayes that say they're private pages, then apply a filter?

UvDeh9S.jpg
 
S

Scrooge McDuck

Member
chekhonte said:
So I can have a better understand of how obnoxious i've been from the very beginning. Has it been more or less obnoxious than your posts?
Click to expand...

See, there you go again with the deflection.

If you want to inform people, do it. Maybe don't start by calling the entire thread garbage. Maybe don't slip in snide remarks that doesn't address anybody in particular. Maybe don't continuously do sarcasm because when has it ever be effective in an internet discussion, ever?

Then when people don't listen to you because of course they don't after you did all of those, maybe don't suddenly accuse people of some hidden agenda to rationalize your own failings.
 
A

Apathy

Member
Lol, "artist", right. She's a plagiarists, thief and hack and should be ridiculed as such. Hell, the "insert Pokemon into famous paintings" should just disqualified her from ever having her name associated with art.
 
N

norm9

Member
damn, even that little messy red dab of paint is in the same spot.

eta- oh wait, she 'shopped the paintbrush over.
 
A

Axass

Member
Anyway, I'd like to point to the fact that there appear to be at least two different threads in what I've seen from her.

1. Take something famous and put some kind of spin to it, like those Sailor Moon canvases with (very minor) cubist influences, or the one of Queen Elizabeth which seem to have passed through too many photoshop filters. These ones have some kind of merit, whether one likes them or not, because she uses famous icons and transforms them in some way, nobody would think she's stealing, because the subjects are simply too famous, so the fact they aren't hers is obvious.

2. She literally "traces" something from an unknown or not so famous artist, possibly combining it with some other "traced" work, without transforming it in any way and without even crediting the original artist. I don't see how someone could defend these, especially since she sells them for big sums of money.
 
P

PandaShake

Member
Even if she credited Kago, there's no originality to it. I would be fine if she took the idea, but used a completely different character like pikachu's facing exploding while crediting Kago. Otherwise, it's a trace.
 
O

Ozigizo

Member
PHOENIXZERO said:
Oh, one of these people... Wasn't there a story on people or a company doing this shit a long while back?
Click to expand...

A bunch of t-shirt companies we're ripping art from DeviantArt and selling it.

It's transformative, though, because instead of a canvas it's a t-shirt.
 
G

Garuroh

Member
UrbanRats said:
In her defense i'll say that some people are really overly obsessed with the idea of denouncing (supposed) copying, to the point where even somewhat similar ideas will get flagged with the label, or in extreme cases, reference material will be seen as copying or "cheating" in some way.
A lot of these people not understanding how drawing actually works, too.

So that can definitely become obnoxious.

This case is somewhat different though, from what i can see.
Falls more in the debate about how transformative art has to be, to become original.
On her website, i found some of the paintings at least somewhat interesting.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the tweets of japanese artist begging people to not steal,repost or copy their drawings? Some of them even stop posting their art, it's a big deal for them and is worse for the ones who can't speak english since they can't communicate that. I don't knoe why people feel the need to defended this woman over those artists.
 
S

StrangeRoboMemory

Member
Her art is awful, even if we accept the thesis that she's just slyly appropriating these cultural icons and re-positioning them in a new light or whatever the fuck. The Pokemon paintings are just as one note as they can be - it's a classic European portrait, except Charizard is there, that's the joke get it??? Now let's see the same thing 5 or 6 different times #paradigmshift #didyouchooseredorblue #illusionofchoice

The fawning Vice and NYT write-ups are absolutely embarrassing. Just goes to show that contemporary critics and art buyers have zero read on the true pulse of what's cool and unique in modern art. So ludicrous that the art world will promote and encourage this sort of creative poverty.

This is not a provocative and compelling take on postmodern culture, it's a Trapper Keeper cover:

larger.jpg


I thought this quote from the artist was rich:

Later, over email, she made it clear that while the specifics are still to be determined, she has goals for the long haul: "I'm not impressed with many young painters..."
Click to expand...

Man, you seem plenty impressed with other young artists, you're sniffing up their asses on the regular to pass their stuff on as your own.
 
O

OrlanisWorks

Banned
Stealing from Shintaro Kago? That art is amazing (he did art for Flying Lotus' You're Dead).

Yeah, this individual not a good artist. Can't even steal properly.
 
S

Syriel

Member
Fulminator said:
Legally you can do it, sure
Click to expand...

You can't just reproduce copyrighted works in another medium and not worry about it.

See the case regarding the use of Ex Nihilo in The Devil's Advocate.

It was arguably a transformative use (in the original filing, the artist and cathedral claimed that the film distorted the meaning behind the work), yet it was settled when a Judge found that the copyright owners (artist/cathedral) had a strong claim and was ready to put a halt to the home video distribution of the film.

Later releases of the film were digitally altered to make the art used appear different.
 
chekhonte

chekhonte

Member
Syriel said:
You can't just reproduce copyrighted works in another medium and not worry about it.

See the case regarding the use of Ex Nihilo in The Devil's Advocate.

It was arguably a transformative use (in the original filing, the artist and cathedral claimed that the film distorted the meaning behind the work), yet it was settled when a Judge found that the copyright owners (artist/cathedral) had a strong claim and was ready to put a halt to the home video distribution of the film.

Later releases of the film were digitally altered to make the art used appear different.
Click to expand...

Yes mechanical reproduction and distribution is different than one off works.
 
L

lvl99 Pixel

Member
what goes through these peoples heads when they decide to steal something and then say "I made this!"

Vigamox said:
This is very common in the art field now, especially due to the recent surge in encouraging use of photo texturing and photobashing. It feels like artists just want to go the fastest possible way to a good image, and instead of figuring it out themselves they resort to lifting elements from other artists instead.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you think that thats a negative thing rather than making use of the digital medium, which yes speed is a factor when churning out lots of designs for a client.
Some of the most talented concept artists will drop photos into their work early on to play with concepts and colours. If its still evident by the finished piece then yeah, they're probably not good at it and its got nothing to do with stealing art.
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
chekhonte said:
Sure. Jacob's Ladder used images from Joel Peter Witkin photographs with out crediting him. None of which I can post here. I'd use art examples but I understand that you guys are going to need a very concrete example or you'll just deflect.
Click to expand...
Anyways, going back to your original argument: the Witkin photograph used in Jacob’s Ladder is appropriately transformative, and the director himself gives credit to Witkin’s photography as a major influence in the film’s imagery.

I mean, if you look at the mediums alone and see how the photograph itself wasn’t directly lifted out, which Hayes is doing with her work, then you can obviously see that justifies the usage of that particular imagery as influence in the context of that film.

Hayes is neither transforming the work nor is she giving credit where it’s due, so I’m not entirely sure why that is an appropriate comparison to a legitimate kleptomaniac.
 
P

PlayALLtheGames

Banned
That there’s a larger collage on that one pic doesn’t change a ton for me. She knew exactly what the fuck she was doing or she would have credited the original artists.

Also should have come out and addressed it immediately instead of just hiding. Tells you everything you need to know.
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
PlayALLtheGames said:
That there’s a larger collage on that one pic doesn’t change a ton for me. She knew exactly what the fuck she was doing or she would have credited the original artists.

And then of course make your shit private instead of immediately coming out and at least admitting it was kind of shitty. Tells you everything you need to know about her.
Click to expand...
And, she has her friends caping for her too. She isn’t responding to any of the accusations in sound. She isn’t holding herself morally accountable for her kleptomania. She isn’t trying to build inroads with the artists she directly lifted from financially. She isn’t apologizing at all. Etc.

At the least, Hayes is a morally bankrupt, reprehensible human.
 
S

suzu

Member
It's pretty obvious why she's copying lesser known artists' work.

She's even lifting peoples' social media posts to repost as her own. I mean, come on bruh. lol
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
suzu said:
It's pretty obvious why she's copying lesser known artists' work.

She's even lifting peoples' social media posts to repost as her own. I mean, come on bruh. lol
Click to expand...
She was exposed for calling people bitches and trolls on her social media account. Fucking scum
 
N

not psycho

Member
One problem with modern art is that it is circular.

Why does this art resonate with the modern art world? It is absolutely because of who the artist is. A pretty white girl copying other peoples' art and selling it without attribution can be piquant and nouveau to people who share much of her background. I have to admit, I have copied composition from photographs, and I have done fanart with parts of it being direct copies. So when I see her art, it makes me think of: A statement on the bankrupt creativity of certain white youth, of their desperate need to not only steal but to mentally convince themselves it is their own work. Thought provoking stuff.

But from another perspective, it's just crappy stolen art, deserving of no recognition, and containing a message that can be equally served with a short forum post, when there are far more powerful messages out there to see. And honestly, that's the more accurate interpretation. For something like this to gain steam in the art world is a brutal indictment of the circular nature of that world.
 
U

Usobuko

Banned
Both author are relatively niche.

Most manga and anime fans won't know about them unless you're into unconventional erotic stuff.

That's probably why she thought she could get away.
 
X

xevis

Banned
Madness said:
Wait a minute, you're telling me someone who is white has taken something done by a person of colour and passed it off as their own? I'd never have believed it. Has this ever happened before.

Also that gallery response is utter bullshit. Appropriation in artwork doesn't mean you copy something exactly the same and pass off as your ow original. Be right back, going to trace the Mona Lisa and just say it's mine.
Click to expand...

Tracing the Mona Lisa is fine and can be considered original work. Its a remix after all. Your pencil take on the original painting. Usually you should acknowlege the original but its no problem, imo. Passing off a straight copy as your own work is where people usually draw the line.
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
Mango Madness said:
Yeesh, this is just unfair. At least a quarter of that $4 million should've gone to the original artist. Hell, the painting looks worse than the original comic panel.
Click to expand...
The larger art community serves to protect and cater to the upper class. They give absolutely no shits about working class artists, which is why I find it extra laughable how some “woke” artists are defending tomfoolery like this.
xevis said:
Tracing the Mona Lisa is fine and can be considered original work. Its a remix after all. Your pencil take on the original painting. Usually you should acknowlege the original but its no problem, imo. Passing off a straight copy as your own work is where people usually draw the line.
Click to expand...

The Mona Lisa is in public domain. Further, everyone knows who the hell painted the Mona Lisa. A large majority of people do not know the original artwork in the OP.
 
Zoe

Zoe

Member
Einchy said:
Was gonna say, a lot those examples of that artist plagiarizing seem more like fanart. Some are a bit too close, but if he called them fan art, then I don't see too much of an issue there.

The ones of Blade Runner and Hermione are silly, though, those are famous pictures. Crazy to call something like that plagiarism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought all of the live action -> drawing examples were ridiculous. That's a very common thing to do and is even sought after within fandoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Comic Book Day! - 12/08/10. Or, what happens when Spike has inadequate preptime.
38
3K
The Take Out Bandit replied
  • Locked
Official SXSW blowout thread.
10
3K
StrikerObi replied
Official NeoGAF E3 2006 Thread (initial post updated regularly)
2 3 4 5 6
262
63K
Shiroi-San replied
Top Bottom