Flashback: The ART of CHEATING

Once I decided I was going to do "flashback" blog, pulled from the archives of Myspace, I knew two blogs in particular that I knew would be on the list or re-post...starting with what i though was a thought-provoking post I called "The ART of CHEATING."

The post really stemmed from something I saw at a convention we did. A couple of women, who were self-publishing their first comic, approched my "neighbor" in artist's alley. They told him that they had never published before, and asked for an honest assesment of the artwork their hired artist had completed so far. Being right next to them, and being naturally curious (coughcoughNOSEYcough) I couldn't help but pay attention.

Now, while it's true the artwork wasn't GREAT...the first thing that my "neighbor" commented on really got me thinking.

The splash page had a castle on top of a hill. He frowned at the work, shaking his head as if he didn't approve, and pointing to the castle, said "Now you see, this is just LAZY. He clearley just drew one tower and Photoshopped it several times. No real ARTIST would ever do that, a REAL artist would draw out each one!"

This really caught me as a little harsh. As I said the artwork wasn't spectacular by any stretch, I certainly thought the castle looked decent. The towers had some decent detail...and yes, if you studied the drawing you could tell that it was one image repeated...but did that mean we could judge him "not an artist?" For copying an image over that is supposed to be identical anyway?

And hoestly, who is anyone to decide that a technique (even one you find "lazy") makes someone "not an artist?"

The exception being for the guys who made THIS.

So I turned my thoughts into a little essay I posted on the Lazerblog back in 2008...it went as follows:

...well in case the title doesn't say it all...it's about cheating. Not on your spouse, or on your trigonometry test, or in sports (looking at YOU Roger Clemens...)...What I'm asking is the age old question: Are you "cheating" if you modify your art digitally?

Granted there are a ..LOT.. of ways a person can use current technology to do that, and I'm sure some are closer to "cheating" than others. Some that come to mind:

If someone notices during inking, that the head of a character is out of proportion...it takes 2-5 seconds in Photoshop to select the area, and "shrink it" to the right size. Is that cheating?

How about if there are a series of panels scripted to use the same camera angle, and background. Is it cheating to draw the background once, and then copy it in Photoshop into the other two panels?

What if I'm simply more comfortable drawing backgrounds while IN Photoshop...is it cheating to simply draw in foreground characters, and use the line tools to draw your backgrounds in using Photoshop?

What if an artist has trouble drawing fire hydrants....so he takes a photo of a hydrant, pastes it into an existing panel, and "traces" it onto the scene?

...or just pastes a building or background into his art, and runs a Photoshop filter over it to make it look hand-drawn?

All of the above are things I either have seen done, or have partaken in myself (before anyone asks, I CAN draw fire hydrants.) Some of them I would NEVER do...others seem like an acceptable way to cut some time.

I believe it comes down to this question: Do you approach comic book making as an "artist" or a "filmmaker?"

Now an artist is self explanatory...the finished, penciled page is a separate work of art...it should be completed, and stand alone as a piece before moving on to the next stage. I fall into the second category: the FILMAKER.

Now that doesn't mean I'm an amateur direct who also draws comics...but that I approach creating comics that same way as a director approaches his film. I would rather get everything in one shot...but if I check the film and something is off, or missing...or even could be improved....I have no issue leaning on the technology to correct, or improve it.

Sometimes I may just draw floating elements on the page, that are meant to be arranged digitally later...point is, the END RESULT is what is most important...as long as it LOOKS good and natural, I don't care what tool I need to use to get it that way.

This is a choice largely made as an indy publisher...if I was trying out for Marvel I might approach it differently. But I have a regular job to keep, a family, and unfortunately no limitless budget to use to get help....without the resources the big two have at their disposal, we have to be creative sometimes with the production process...even if it means not taking the more purely "artistic" approach.

The blog got a good respose, with several people weighing in their own experinces and opinions. Something  I hope will repeat here, so feel free to comment below.

 

 

 

Also, as an end not to the story above...as a self-gratifying experiment, sometime after the two girls left, I showed our "neighbor" a page where I had done the same thing, just to see what he would say. While he had some constructive (and totally accurate) critisisms and suggestions...he did not notice or comment that I had used the same cut-and-paste technique he had condemned 20 minutes earlier. It's more than likely it's because I made sure it was not abundantly obvious that I had done that...however that only brings me back to my original point: It's the end result that matters.

Unless, of course, the end result is THIS.

But then, that's just MY opinion.

-Chris

PS: Next time we will post my follow-up to this blog, posted a year later...called "The art of Cheating, part 2: The CHEATING of ART!

-Chris