Does Linda Bergkvist/Enayla really paint over photos?

Does Linda Bergkvist/Enayla paint over photos?

Yes	9.5%	[ 7 ]
No	29.7%	[ 22 ]
Not Sure	60.8%	[ 45 ]
Total Votes:			[ 74 ]

[Kimaya]

keiiii

Kimaya: Disagreements =/= attacks, so it's all good. smile

Hehe.. ok whew...

And yah, looks like we don't really disagree anyway. I agree with your perspective when you point out that type of artist, especially someone who is pretending to have a higher level of skill than they do. Especially when they are earning money and winning contests and fame.. it can be pretty disheartening. I was not really thinking in those terms, thanks for pointing that out.

Honesty is a virtue it would be nice if more people had, along with a whole lot of others I think we feel less obligated to use on the internet...but Im not sure if its the cart or the horse in this instance. Probably its the horse.

Subigame - yes, I think we must be confused on what paint over is. I think you are referring to photo-manipulation?

I know what to look for too, I mean, most artists can spot inconsistant technique. But even if I were absolutely certain, I think it is best not to accuse of a paint over - heavy reference is just fine for gaia rules anyway and will be sufficient subject matter to use to humiliate the artist in question.

Because I dont think it can be proved really whether an artist did one or the other (overwhelming evidence can usually be attributed to either), or that you have swayed me to think it can be. Photo-manipulation (smearing photos or cutting photos and using them in a pic) on the other hand is another story.

[Yrindale]

I can say one thing else, even if this were true on a speculative level, I've seen Linda put so much into her work that she would go into deep depressions after painting a piece.... she literally would work herself to the point of pain if it came to it. And that, to me at least, is enough to have respect for her no matter what method she were to use. I still am dead set sure that she doesn't use paint overs - but even if she did - I can't say I'd hold it against her..... she's worried me in the past based on how down she's gotten from just putting her all into a picture.

I don't know if that's general knowledge or not. But I can say that no ordinary photo manipulator or paint over artist puts that much into their work to the point of truly making themselves ill on a severe basis.

[Kimaya]

Yrindale

I can say one thing else, even if this were true on a speculative level, I've seen Linda put so much into her work that she would go into deep depressions after painting a piece.... she literally would work herself to the point of pain if it came to it. And that, to me at least, is enough to have respect for her no matter what method she were to use. I still am dead set sure that she doesn't use paint overs - but even if she did - I can't say I'd hold it against her..... she's worried me in the past based on how down she's gotten from just putting her all into a picture.

I don't know if that's general knowledge or not. But I can say that no ordinary photo manipulator or paint over artist puts that much into their work to the point of truly making themselves ill on a severe basis.

Wow how interesting!!! I sometimes get depressed or at a minimum bad art block after a particularly long, difficult and trying piece. I mean I dont pretend to be anywhere near her brilliance or level of detail put into work (besides theres no point in comparing that, for me what is hard would be easy to her anyway), but its just something interesting to note about artists and how we pour something of ourselves into our work.

I am one of the depressed artist types (never met another one but have heard of them/us). I have no reason to get depressed but I usually do.. often going away from the world for long periods of time. And I dont enjoy it and Im not emo either..and its not something small or imagined like the blues. I dont consider depression abnormal anymore and I think I handle my hormones and can manage my moods pretty well now, but I do know it can create problems for people with severe or long episodes trying to function in society - so I cant ignore it either.

Anyway... er, back on topic. And yah, there's definitely no thought in my mind she is a paint over artist. I dont even know if she does take shortcuts.. honestly I think those clumpy looking blobs of darkness in the images are what they appear to be - the artist's decision to tone down her detail with shadows or light.

[Subimagine]

Kimaya

keiiii

Kimaya: Disagreements =/= attacks, so it's all good. smile

Hehe.. ok whew...

And yah, looks like we don't really disagree anyway. I agree with your perspective when you point out that type of artist, especially someone who is pretending to have a higher level of skill than they do. Especially when they are earning money and winning contests and fame.. it can be pretty disheartening. I was not really thinking in those terms, thanks for pointing that out.

Honesty is a virtue it would be nice if more people had, along with a whole lot of others I think we feel less obligated to use on the internet...but Im not sure if its the cart or the horse in this instance. Probably its the horse.

Subigame - yes, I think we must be confused on what paint over is. I think you are referring to photo-manipulation?

I know what to look for too, I mean, most artists can spot inconsistant technique. But even if I were absolutely certain, I think it is best not to accuse of a paint over - heavy reference is just fine for gaia rules anyway and will be sufficient subject matter to use to humiliate the artist in question.

Because I dont think it can be proved really whether an artist did one or the other (overwhelming evidence can usually be attributed to either), or that you have swayed me to think it can be. Photo-manipulation (smearing photos or cutting photos and using them in a pic) on the other hand is another story.

I guess that's because I place full paintovers where you trace the work exactly in the same catergory as a photomanipulation, because you aren't creating anything, you're just tracing what already exists. It's a bad way to do a painting due to the duplication of camera distortion and dishonest, there's nothing wrong with using an image you own or that's free to use to build on when you have the skills to paint the same even without the photo but if you're just using the photo or even worse someone elses work to cheat because you don't have the skills then that's wrong.

I guess my point is that anyone who cheats and lies deserves to have their cheating outed so people remember them and they won't be able to get away with it again.

I don't think Linda is one of those who misuses the incorporation of photographic imagery though if she does incorporate it which I'm not convinced she does.

[archangel_xl99]

Me, personally, I've always been hardcore about making everything from scratch. It's like it's all a matter of pride to not have to rely on something.

I do empathsize with the notion that if one uses stock photos for reference, it's usually a form of courtesy to leave a little link or two so people are able to see how you use your source material and adapt it into what you worked on.

Most people don't seem to realize referencing doesn't always equal copying.

Photomanipulation itself is a sticky subject especially if it involves photos and other materials not shot from the artist him/herself. One prominent photomanip artist told me that it's all about "the ends justifies the means", which of course I disagree, but he does mention that photomanips that consist of mostly stock/copyright material cannot be sold anywhere as it's obviously illegal to do so. And hell, it's all legit if you're working in a graphic design firm and you're just doing what the boss and the client tell you. If there's any heat, it'd be on them.

But back on Linda...

I'd even go as far to say if Linda were to [say in a parallel universe] do any photomanips or mattes, she'd still be at a decent enough level to be a professional. That woman DOES NOT skimp on details, that's perfect for jobs that require that degree of concentration.

People who could spend like 20-40 hours painting over a photo of some celebrity can be regarded as sadly pathetic.

I personally think after all these years, you'd figure with the scrutiny of anonymous users on the internet, they'd finally get a clue and figure out the meaning behind "observational skill" in traditional and digital art.

[Kimaya]

Quote:

I guess my point is that anyone who cheats and lies deserves to have their cheating outed so people remember them and they won't be able to get away with it again.

And a man who is on the stand for killing someone defending themselves in a drunken brawl ... Im sure we should make sure he gets 1st degree cold blooded murder rather than manslaughter just because he was dishonest and kept stuff back or lied while he was afraid/stupid and trying to protect themselves. I mean, who cares about the facts when its a crime.

A lot of people don't realize what they are doing is wrong. I know it might seem stupid, but thats how it is.

Anyway, Im not saying its right subi, Im not saying its a good way to do something, Im just saying one is easy to prove and the other isnt.
Its hard to prove a paint over when the person removes the original photo from the image - even when you find the original photo it can *still* be just a reference. It might really really really really look exact, but thats all. I dont see how you can determine the technique for an absolute fact. That is what is hard to prove. In a photo-manip (smuding a photo or pasting perfect eyes from a photo onto their image) you can find proof of the photo because its still in the image. Sorry, these things are not the same, they may both be dishonest but they are not the same techniques.

I think we've talked about it enough to realize that you think you can prove a paint over and I think you cant. The artist pretty much has to admit it, or I've never seen a case that was obvious and so that will be my own flaw in this discussion (unless you want to pm me the images and tell me how you proved it and they are truly glaringly obvious examples of a paint over). Its really no big.

Quote:

I personally think after all these years, you'd figure with the scrutiny of anonymous users on the internet, they'd finally get a clue and figure out the meaning behind "observational skill" in traditional and digital art.

omg seriously! sweatdrop /agrees

-------

As for me, my figures are not referenced... I dont have the exact replicating observational skill - it has to be in my imagination for me to draw it and staring at a photo helps me a little but not a lot. I use references for things which I need to make sure Im not really deviating from how it truly appears, but its still in my style and my own art. Thats my preference, but I dont believe its the only way to do art or to perform something artistically.

I wish I did have the observational skill which some artists do have because I think it helps you learn a lot faster among other things. Maybe I just need to train my mind to visualize better, I dont know.

[archangel_xl99]

Y'know what would be really funky?

If some artists went and shot or found an entire head/body rotation of someone and did a few paintings based from the body proportions and structure in obviously different poses and viewing angles.

It'd be a mindblowing and complicated take on the consistency skill animators use to draw characters from model sheets.

[Kimaya]

so true.. actually it must be a lot like sculpting... I love to sculpt!...and I want to learn how to render 3d models.. not sure if I will be able to though, we shall see ^^

edit - ok I think I've patrolled this topic enough for the day blaugh Doesn't mean I won't be back! (gets to work)

[Subimagine]

Kimaya

And a man who is on the stand for killing someone defending themselves in a drunken brawl ... Im sure we should make sure he gets 1st degree cold blooded murder rather than manslaughter just because he was dishonest and kept stuff back or lied while he was afraid/stupid and trying to protect themselves. I mean, who cares about the facts when its a crime.

A lot of people don't realize what they are doing is wrong. I know it might seem stupid, but thats how it is.

Anyway, Im not saying its right subi, Im not saying its a good way to do something, Im just saying one is easy to prove and the other isnt.
Its hard to prove a paint over when the person removes the original photo from the image - even when you find the original photo it can *still* be just a reference. It might really really really really look exact, but thats all. I dont see how you can determine the technique for an absolute fact. That is what is hard to prove. In a photo-manip (smuding a photo or pasting perfect eyes from a photo onto their image). Sorry, these things are not the same, they may both be dishonest but they are not the same techniques.

I think we've talked about it enough to realize that you think you can prove a paint over and I think you cant. The artist pretty much has to admit it, or I've never seen a case that was obvious and so that will be my own flaw in this discussion (unless you want to pm me the images and tell me how you proved it and they are truly glaringly obvious examples of a paint over). Its really no big.

How are murder and art related? It's not like a painting jumps out of the screen and stabs you in the eyeballs. blaugh Your premise is unfortunately flawed imho, since you're comparing a non-existent situation to an existing one. A more fitting analogy from my point of view would be the guy should go down for 1st degree murder if he's lying and he did intend and plan to kill the person. Honesty is the best policy after all.

How can you not realise that what amounts to tracing is wrong? That's like saying "whoops officer, I didn't realise that stealing cars was wrong" I don't get how people can feel proud of themselves if they're relying on someone else or something else to do the work.

You have forgotten one thing, reproduction? pixel by pixel copying? Those are learning tools at the most, if you're making artwork to sell and promote your skills? Potential clients do not want to see how well you play the role of human xerox machine. Most colleges impress on their students that copy for learning is one thing but you shouldn't present copies as your own work. Also most paintovers? Tend to leave the original image in there, also you tend to get color matching since a lot of people who paintover sample colours from the original piece. So I think you can determine if something is a paint over but it's on a case by case basis and some people who paintover are better at hiding it than others.

I'd refer you to the guy who threw a tantrum but I no longer have the files that prove it was a paintover.

[Kimaya]

I think you dont understand what I'm saying.. sorry. Im saying get your facts straight before you judge someone, thats all. manslaughter is wrong according to the law.... Try to reanalyze what I said with that thought, or you could just make another guess on what I mean. I never said I thought tracing, paintover or extremely heavy referencing was good... O_o...

Anyway, my argument is flawed? Are you sure? Or is this another fact of yours thats really just an opinion. I dont see any valid argumen to show how my analogy doesn't make sense versus my opinion that you dont understand it, seemingly.

[Daisy7]

I actually loled...I had no idea, I was always "wow" with her artwork and knowing that she may obviously paint over artworks definately seem to deminish that 'wow' factor.

I dont mind the using bits and peices from photos..Ill use my own photos that Ive taken from foliage and turn them into brushes for my own digital painting..this I can understand. Unless your a landscape artist drawing every bit of plant life in my opinion is unneeded..its not the focus of the picture it just makes the whole thing look completed in the end.

Painting over is a bit of a different scenerio =P its like tracing...what are you proving to us? that your a good tracer? but do you actually know how to draw? at all?

Not to mention if credit is not given, its obviously illegal. I dont know if any of the photographs belong to her...if thats the case then thats fine..but if not then its art theft =B just like all those other art thefts people bash each others brains in for.

I think the first reaction people do in these situations is try and cover for the artist...she's a popular artist and has to be one of the most influential to the online world..so ofcourse everybodies going to be making excuses for her because somebody that famous doesnt cheat =P where as if this was any other artist they'd be condemned to hell.

She's a good artist and a good painter but its quite obvious she cheats often..I guess thats it.

[Subimagine]

Kimaya

I think you dont understand what I'm saying.. sorry. Im saying get your facts straight before you judge someone, thats all. manslaughter is wrong according to the law.... Try to reanalyze what I said with that thought, or you could just make another guess on what I mean. I never said I thought tracing, paintover or extremely heavy referencing was good... O_o...

Anyway, my argument is flawed? Are you sure? Or is this another fact of yours thats really just an opinion. I dont see any valid argumen to show how my analogy doesn't make sense versus my opinion that you dont understand it, seemingly.

I think you misunderstand actually, I'm saying if an artist is painting over because they don't have the skill, altering an existing picture or otherwise lying about the production of their art then they deserve to get found out in my opinion.

Your analogy doesn't match up because the cases I'm discussing are closer to someone plotting to kill someone in a brawl, doing so then claiming they didn't do it afterwards. I didn't say you thought tracing, paintover or heavily referencing was good, the you was a general you meaning anyone who thinks that, I'm disagreeing however with your opinion that someone shouldn't be called out on it if that is what they're doing. False accusations not withstanding, if someone is geniunely cheating to appear more skilled than they are by painting over/altering/tracing existing works/photos then they deserve to be exposed as the frauds they are in my opinion.

Yes, I think someone should be sure before they make the accusation but I don't see anything wrong with someone publically exposing a fraud. I never said my opinions were facts, perhaps you're reading too much into this, our debate has been based largely around the following: A: can paintovers be detected and B: whether or not it is wrong to expose someone who is lying about how they make their images. I personally think paintovers can be detected since most paintovers are sloppily done and the person often doesn't cover it up well enough.

[Daisy7]

Subimagine

[

I think you misunderstand actually, I'm saying if an artist is painting over because they don't have the skill, altering an existing picture or otherwise lying about the production of their art then they deserve to get found out in my opinion.

Yes, I think someone should be sure before they make the accusation but I don't see anything wrong with someone publically exposing a fraud. I never said my opinions were facts, perhaps you're reading too much into this, our debate has been based largely around the following: A: can paintovers be detected and B: whether or not it is wrong to expose someone who is lying about how they make their images. I personally think paintovers can be detected since most paintovers are sloppily done and the person often doesn't cover it up well enough.

I agree, expecially because lesser known artists will have their hind ends handed to them more times then they care too if they did the same thing =P

I seem to remember cases of art theft featuring Enaylas work and hundreds of fans would flock to the wrong doers page..

Enayla may be popular but cheating should still made apparent >>

Witch hunts and mobs shouldnt happen to anyone but nor should people continue to believe that everything that the person in question does is completely original and encourage that person to continue what they're doing.

[Subimagine]

Daisy7

Witch hunts and mobs shouldnt happen to anyone but nor should people continue to believe that everything that the person in question does is completely original and encourage that person to continue what they're doing.

A-men to that, I once had a popular artist call down a mob on me she accused me of tracing an image in an X-men comic, only problem was A: the comic didn't even come out here until a week after I drew my image and B: The pictures didn't match up at all except the characters looked a little alike, but because she was uber popular I had people coming after me and giving me a hard time because she said I was a tracer even though I didn't trace anything.

[Kimaya]

ok.. last time....

my example was this.

The guy *was* really defending himself and killed someone in a brawl, but because he lied and tripped over himself on the stand and was worried if he admitted to certain things they would find him guilty of 1st degree murder when he didnt mean to kill the guy but did on accident. Well, he gets found out and the jury thought it was premeditated and he was covering it up and lying so much. They were wrong, but they charged him with 1st degree murder.

Yes lying is wrong, but it doesnt change the reality of a situation.

I think paint over artists (the real ones) have very little skill. You can see in their work they suck. Their technique is usually a pile of crap and the only reason they are able to fool people is because they are able to have shadows, shapes and everything else rendered in a way which can trick an amateur artist's eye into believing they did it without painting over.

Its not referencing, Im not saying it is!!!

What Im saying is that often people who do use references get accused of painting over because their work is so closely referenced (eyeballed). They are both forms of copying on this level... but they are also really different and its hard to prove something was traced rather than eyeballed.

Thats all Im saying here.. Im not defending the bad guy, Im just saying we really need to stop this misconception before even more reference artists get wrongly accused of tracing or painting over.

Let them be reference artists and disdain them if you like, I dont care. Im more concerned with my own art than that of someone else.


BTW thank you for explaining yourself before this degenerated into a youre right im wrong argument without and valid points smile

Quote:

Witch hunts and mobs shouldnt happen to anyone but nor should people continue to believe that everything that the person in question does is completely original and encourage that person to continue what they're doing.

well, honestly its probably none of our business what another person does, but this is definitely a more agreeable solution. I would try to help someone who thought they were doing something that was ok, when they were doing something wrong. I hope that hasnt been misinterpretted here.