I posted this first in response to Malin, June 30th, ‘Grid is it cheating?’ and thought my reply might make for interesting discussion,

How far can we use technology to help in producing our works of art, before it becomes ‘cheating’?


I have drawn for many years, most attempts at drawing portraits in particular, were done from photographs drawing by eye, not using a grid, the results varied from reasonable likeness to unrecognisable generic faces, because of this, I started using the grid, this placed all the vital parts of the face in the right position, in proportion and good likenesses were achievable. The real artistry was in the subtlety of shading and the modelling of the face. I have been in awe of the past masters and their ability to get almost photographic likenesses down on canvas. Then I read an article by Hockney, where he claims to uncover their 'secret', Leonardo used grids! Vermeer and others used (allegedly) Camera Obscurers, and towards the end of the 19th century evidence of the wide use of the Camera Lucinda is put forward. The use of these tools does not detract from the artistry demonstrated, so the use of the grid would appear to be perfectly acceptable.
Now, to be more controversial, I do drawings to raise funds for charity, hence I need to work quite quickly from photographs to meet deadlines, the setting up of a grid and the plotting of the features is very time consuming. What follows, I say with fear of resounding roars of 'CHEAT', but I use a tool that is available today, you have guessed it, the computer! Not to produce graphic art, but to save time I scan a given photo, with a drawing program I insert a scan of the photo, and on a second layer mark out key points, these key points are then printed out onto the drawing paper, and the basis for the drawing is ready, saving a lot of time.
I would value any thoughts you may have on this, and yes, I do feel a little guilty, but those who request and received drawings are delighted with the results. Before I close, I must say, quick as this method is, nothing beats sitting out doors a drawing in the field without any aids bar pencil, pad and eye!

How is that any different than using a projector? Tools are tools, would you want someone to build you a house using the tools of 100 years ago, or do you want them to use the tools that will get the job done the best and fastest way since you need to live in that house and are PAYING to have it built?

I remember reading a similar thread as this and someone posted a story of an art teacher and his class of students.. there was a visitor in the class and the visitor was observing all the students draw from life. After the class left the teacher asked the visitor what they thought of the students work.. and the visitor said.. it was interesting to see all the different interpretations. And the teacher said .. "Interpretations.. you mean mistakes!"

As far as technology goes..
I just got myself a nice Dell 3400 small DLP projector and rigged a mount so it hangs face down over my work table! I can not wait to do a new project and be able to trace the photo directly from the laptop in the light of day and actually see what I am doing. Opaque projectors are just not bright enough to work in the light which makes it hard to get the reference lines correct even though I am using a tool!

I think we should use the tools that work best for us and allow us to achieve the results we desire in the time frame required.

BTW, I know nothing of Art be it high or low. I do know without tools I would never have rendered anything and would still think you need to have some mystical born in talent to produce any kind of an image...
Remember art is in the eye of the beholder.. they are not present while the art is being created..

Thank you airscapes, I agree and believe that if Leonardo was around today he would be the first to use a computer for his references. I am starting to feel less guilty already

Using technology to make things faster, more enjoyable and more acurate is okay by me. I see no reason to limit the use of it. Especially if you have tight time constraints.

Just the same there is nothing more rewarding than drawing a likeness, still or landscape with nothing but a pencil and some paper. It even comes in handy when you get those unexpected challenges to draw something on the spot.

Tools are useful and at times necessary, but drawing freehand is a very important part of who I am as an artist. It is a skill that I work on everyday.

It's also a lot cheaper.

I had to comment on this. You made reference to using a camera lucida. I bought one of these things and so far, I have not been able to use it to produce any drawing. Of course, after I bought it I found other models that seemed much better but were also more expensive. If I had it to do over, I would save up for the camera lucida with better optics that uses special optical lenses. This is much better than the simple mirrors and plexiglass that are in the camera lucida I own.

Now on to the topic of "cheating" which has been discussed abundantly here. I personally do not consider using grids, tracing or computers cheating. As was mentioned earlier, even the early masters used grids, and in certain cases used "cartoons" (a pattern or template) that they used to get the image onto the surface.

Having said all of that, nothing beats practice. A knowledge of the basics of shapes, light and shading coupled with practice is a sure recipe for success.

Thank you rjblanchette and pmowen49, it was only reading the article mentioned by Hockney that made me consider using the PC to reference, I really did think every artist did everything freehand or by grid, because of this misconception I strived to draw better and learnt many valuable lessons on the way. I would encourage anyone just starting out to try and learn to draw by eye and free hand first then start using aids at a later stage.

I think if you had a program or something that drew it for you, that would be cheating. But just useing tools to help get you going, nothing wrong with that.

If I took a photo and used a computer program to make it resemble a drawing then I would consider that cheating. Not only would I be telling a lie, I would also be cheating my self.

When I spend 4 to 7 hours on a drawing, with out the aid of anything but a ruler, my graphite pencils and skill at drawing, and someone says, "It looks like a photo", there is a satisfying feeling I would not get by any other method.

Bobby

Total agreement with you bobby, the so called 'art' effects on these programs are, in my experience aweful, it would be impossible to pass off one as a genuine drawing. I only use it in the same way as some use an OHP. Thanks for your response.

Read the opinions of Igor Babailov on the subject of cutting corners.

7 Essentials to Commissioning a Portrait Painting.

Interesting...
Not sure how that makes me feel.
I agree there are far to many people in this world trying to pass themselves off as an expert in a subject matter when they are not! Just try and pay someone to do something for you that you are not qualified to do! Chances are it will be an average to poor job and not worth what you paid even if you paid top dollar, be it art or other skilled trade. One has to make sure the tradesman they chosen is indeed an expert that the subject matter.
So yes, if I was to try and find a builder or portrait artist, I would want the most skilled and experienced trades man I could find!

However, as a hobbyist I feel like I am being put down for not committing my life to something that to me should be nothing more than enjoyable and fulfilling. I guess I should not feel like that, I leaned early on that art for pay = work and stress.. No need to do that to myself.

So I guess I will probably remain a tool using, poorly skilled, photocopier and enjoy the soulless fruits of my labor! Maybe when I retire I will have the time and drive to work on my basic skills, I have no doubt anyone can do this, it just takes the time and effort to learn.

In the mean time, I will use the tools that make my hobby fun knowing full well I am no master artist!

Very wise words airscape! I too consider this my hobby, and not a means of income. So I guess the question is irrelevant in my case. I can use whatever means I decide to aide me in my artistic endaevours! As luck wold have it, I use only traditional methods, i.e. pencil and paper, ink and wash, watercolours and Acrylics. This gives me a personal satisfaction. There has been talk on these boards of using grids and rulers etc. I see those as tools of the trade. If you take a photograph and add a filter to it to make it look like a pencil drawing, and then try to pass it off as just that! Then I feel sorry for the person doing it! If they took the photograph in the first instance and altered it in photoshop or gimp, then the merit would lie in the photograph.

I don't differ with this opinion, but would like to add that photography is an art in itself. There is a lot of skill involved in taking pictures. As with any artform, there are techniques one has to master to be proficient in making good pictures.

Hello Doug (Airscapes),
You're right you should not feel like you are being put down. I know I don't.

My take on Mr. Babailov's points was that they were directed at academic art programs and not hobbyists like us. I think that he is upset with the fact that someone can leave an art program with an MFA and still can't draw.

If I were a young student of art, I think I would consider his point of view very seriously. Alas I'm not so I'll keep using photos for reference and a ruler to control my marks.

On another note, I'm also going to use technology to hit my golf drive 10 yards further. I'm no Igor Babailov or Tiger Woods either.

Yes, after thinking about it a bit more I did understand the point and realized hobby folk were not who he was talking about.
I actually had one of those graduates .. took drawing 101 at the local community college.. the person teaching was a part time teacher.. This person could not show me how to draw what we were supposed to be drawing! Apparently they went from school to teaching and did not make a living making art.. and apparently could not draw very well, to Mr Babailoy's point!

It takes skill to use tools. I've said it before that I could pull someone off the street and show them how to use a grid, and they still couldn't produce a portait. I could show them how to use a projector, still they couldn't paint a landscape. I could tell them how to use traceing paper to transfer an image, and they still wouldn't be able to capture the shadeing and light of a ice cube, or trees. They just wouldn't have basic drawing skills and know how you need to do something like that.
I've airbrushed a few gas tanks for money, and I'll use any tool, method or means I can to get the results I want. And that's my only essential, Get the result I want. Sometimes it's all freehand right out of my head, sometimes not. But If I get what I want then I'm happy.

Thank you Bob (RJ Blanchette) for stimulating this topic, I empathise with the article, with regards to 'professional' artists. The majority of us do not have the privilege of drawing portraits from life, as few people, happy to loan out their favourite photo', would not be happy to put time aside to sit. Photography was borne out of a desire for artists to capture a scene, portrait, or whatever subject, exactly, and then leave the subject, go back to a studio and work. Today the technology now exists, not only to take the photograph, but to plot key elements of it on the PC and then print lightly onto paper for the real art to begin, exactly the same reason for the use of the grid in the first place, but quicker and more precise.
Maybe as a way of concluding this debate, and thank you all for contributing, it is safe to say, the use of the PC to plot elements from a photo' is acceptable, it's not cheating, used when precision is essential i.e portraits, but anyone wishing to improve their drawing and observation skills, should endeavour whenever practical, to try and draw from life.

I am really enjoying this site, seeing other works, the different styles, I am even contemplating having a go with coloured pencils (thanks Bob for your shavings pic!). By being on here, I feel I have already benefitted by improving some aspects of my drawings, 'Diolch yn fawr', Welsh for thank you very much! to all involved in maintaining and running it.

You said so well what I have been trying to say. No one can judge the success of your art but you. There is no "cheating" or "moral" issues. The issues in my opinion are two fold: do you lie or try to decieve? Do you get creative satisfaction from the work? Are you skilled as you claim to be? It takes great skill to create original works of art with any medium, and that includes all the computer programs.. Do you create, or do you lie?

Only you can accurately judge your art. Only you can perceive when you get artistic satisfaction from your work of art.

Bobby.

It doesnt REALLY seem like you are doing the work... Maybe to someone who is really in to might be affended but someone like me who do art with pencil and paper it woulb be "cheating"

Hmm - several points here, in no particular order.

Igor Babailov is a great self-publicist (a useful skill in its own right). Don't forget that the page in question is in aid of drumming up customers for his portraiture business (professional high-end realist portraiture is a very competitive area) - part of that is talking up the skills and mystique, as a way of justifying the prices (and subtly implying that some competitors may be more photo=based in their process, and lack drawing skills).

I dislike the use of the word "cheating" - I think the issue is that one should be honest - I agree with Bobby here:



One could think of realist drawing (and painting) as being carried out in two stages, essentially. The first is getting the proportions and placements right, and the second is shading/rendering to show 3D form. While people often concentrate on the second, its actually the first which is more difficult. There is a lot to be said in favour of drawing from life (by which I mean any real-life objects in front of you, not only heads/figures), because it emphasises the processes of getting down accurate proportions and placements without using the sorts of tools which can be readily resorted to in working from photos.

The problem with grids, in particular, is that while they provide a reasonably efficient way of transferring or scaling an image from a photo-reference, and guarantee that proportions/placements ought to be pretty accurate, but they do so by ducking the central issue, which is to get people to look at the "big picture" - they reinforce the idea of keeping zoomed-in on small detailed areas, whereas if you want to be able to work freehand accurately, the first stage is being able to get an accurate overview of the overall shapes of the subject.

One thing I've noticed in my own life-drawing is that it tends to be easier to get the overall shapes and proportions of a figure working small, rather than working large - in the latter situation, I've found I'm more liable to misjudge placements unless I can work at an easel and from time to time get back away from it so as to see the figure relatively small. (Going from a small preparatory sketch to a large-scale painting is one time when gridding can be particularly useful).

Dave

What about Andy Warhol's silkscreen paintings like his Marilyn Monroe paintings? He never did any of those free hand.

http://www.tfaoi.com/cm/4cm/4cm335.pdf


http://www.warholfoundation.org/pdf/volume2.pdf


http://www.nyaa.edu/nyaa/gschool.html

I strongly agree with Bobby on this one, if anyone takes a photo puts it in a computer program such as photo shop to make it appear to be a drawing, I would consider that cheating with very little talent involved. I also believe we should consider our personal goals. For example I strive to be stricktly a free hand style artist and want to be able to draw on the spot... I could never achieve this with the aid of a computer.

I also tend to admire drawings more that appear to look like a drawing, and not a photo.

that's my 2 cents,

Brian.

I have a video that I purchased years ago from a canadian teacher who was teaching 'drawing from life' and he stressed the arabesque, getting the 'overall' shape and structure right,. I used a grid for a long time, for EVERTHING. It was helpful in many ways, at the beginning of this year (my new years resolution) I put the grid away and have been really working on learning without the grid to 'see'. The grid was useful, but it will inhibit growth. We must step away from that to learn to 'really see' at some point. I dont think gridding is 'cheating' at all, it is a useful tool for beginners, but if we 'stay' with using the grid we are 'cheating' ourselves

Great discussion, folks.

My contribution is to point out that as with any argument on ethics or morality, there are very few absolutes. Ultimately everyone has to make up their own mind. Two people can disagree on what cheating is or is not, and neither is right or wrong: everyone gets to have their own opinion. The important thing is to know who you are and what you believe.

I think I've brought up the Roy Underhill vs Norm Abrams discussion before: two woodworkers with television shows who both believe in craftsmanship and create objects of beauty and charm. Roy uses no electricity and makes his own tools; Norm uses every gadget and power tool in existence. There are some who debate the relative merits of these two approaches, but I think it makes the most sense to try to appreciate each aesthetic for what it is.

Notice how I've said absolutely nothing about my own beliefs in this particular debate

I draw everything freehand but sometimes I'll use the computer to enhance or add effects.

This subject always seems to arouse strong opinions.
If I'm doing a portrait and going for a likeness I will take a tracing onto clear plastic direct from the computer screen. I generally take main features etc but you could if you wanted to put in as much detail as you wanted. I then use this as an accurate guide for the portrait and to make sure I never lose the likeness which does tend to get lost as I work layers of pastel.
This was a great tip I found on Karin Wells blog. I think we all work in a way to suit ourselves. Modern technology has given us some great tools!

Katherine