Fan Art High Fan Art Low Fan Art Medium

[johnar]

Can I suggest these categories for fan art?

High = complete and totally the creation of the one posting the art.
Computer graphic artists and owners of expensive software have the edge here.
That and some folks are naturally gifted.

Medium = photo manipulation to a large degree, where giving credit to everyone and their parents would look like rolling movie credits. A certain understanding is involved with releasing images to the world online without all rights reserved emblazoned upon it.

Low = out and out reproduction for fun, humor, satire, etc.

Coming up with ideas to rearrange images to portray is an art too!
Hollywood does it all the time.

 

[Michael]

Can I suggest these categories for fan art?

High = complete and totally the creation of the one posting the art.
Computer graphic artists and owners of expensive software have the edge here.
That and some folks are naturally gifted.

Medium = photo manipulation to a large degree, where giving credit to everyone and their parents would look like rolling movie credits. A certain understanding is involved with releasing images to the world online without all rights reserved emblazoned upon it.

Low = out and out reproduction for fun, humor, satire, etc.

Coming up with ideas to rearrange images to portray is an art too!
Hollywood does it all the time.

I think any such categorization is completely unnecessary, since you really can post any kind of fan art you want in this forum without any problems. (Well, any kind of art in accordance with board and forum rules, of course.) Why should we need to assign any categories to the different kinds of art that are contributed here? What makes one kind of art “higher” than the other?

Such categorization would in my opinion only poison the atmosphere and add nothing to make it more fun for everyone. This forum is open to everybody and everything. And frankly, I think it's kind of insulting to digital artists who focus mainly on photo manipulation to say their work is somehow “lower” than other people's results. At least that's not how I view art.

Coming up with ideas to rearrange images to portray is an art too!

Of course it is! And no-one tried to argue differently anywhere. Just be honest about your artwork when it comes to who created what in it. Contrary to what you seem to suggest, it doesn't take “rolling movie credits” to do so. Authorship is a key concern to every artist. And this is a subforum made up entirely of artists, so a modicum of due credit is only fair and expected.

You seem to me like you somehow feel unfairly persecuted about this, when really this whole credit other people's work thing is a rule that has made this part of the board a comfortable environment for artists for well over a decade at this point.

And as a side note, I don't really appreciate how you circumvented my request in your earlier thread to contact me via PM in case you wanted to discuss this further. But oh well, maybe this is a discussion which should be held out in the open and with everyone here.

 

[Forbin]

if someone has to be TOLD its the decent thing to do and credit others if you use their work, they really will never get it.

Well, there's always that newbie who doesn't realize internet art isn't done by faceless drones for his own use, and will respond to "Hey! I made that, dammit!" with an "Oh sorry! I didn't realize!" and change their thieving ways. Or am I being too idealistic?

In any case, I agree that the proposal to classify art here isn't a good idea.

 

[johnar]

I think any such categorization is completely unnecessary, since you really can post any kind of fan art you want in this forum without any problems. (Well, any kind of art in accordance with board and forum rules, of course.) Why should we need to assign any categories to the different kinds of art that are contributed here? What makes one kind of art “higher” than the other?

Such categorization would in my opinion only poison the atmosphere and add nothing to make it more fun for everyone. This forum is open to everybody and everything. And frankly, I think it's kind of insulting to digital artists who focus mainly on photo manipulation to say their work is somehow “lower” than other people's results. At least that's not how I view art.


Of course it is! And no-one tried to argue differently anywhere. Just be honest about your artwork when it comes to who created what in it. Contrary to what you seem to suggest, it doesn't take “rolling movie credits” to do so. Authorship is a key concern to every artist. And this is a subforum made up entirely of artists, so a modicum of due credit is only fair and expected.

You seem to me like you somehow feel unfairly persecuted about this, when really this whole credit other people's work thing is a rule that has made this part of the board a comfortable environment for artists for well over a decade at this point.

And as a side note, I don't really appreciate how you circumvented my request in your earlier thread to contact me via PM in case you wanted to discuss this further. But oh well, maybe this is a discussion which should be held out in the open and with everyone here.

okay

 

[Finn]

Whut?

I think you could give M some more comments than "okay" and that image Were you envisioning a post battle with M here in the fan art forum as if we were in the TNZ or the Misc when Locutus is having a bad day?

I have to say your OP was a bit confusing- there will be folks who think their art is high, when the skill, talent and techniques behind them are light years apart, and there's no point to it. People have been posting art for years.

 

[Soran77]

Art theft is something I personally have experienced and I feel bad that I lost my shit on people who posted it in a FB group, but it hurts, I had models on the 3D warehouse, one of them was DLed and used for an image with no credits, and though it was public part of the T&C's of the warehouse is giving credit to the original artist.. I will rage out, I've seen fellow artists who have become friends on this forum have their art used, even art from star trek online, it's super upsetting to see someone take credit where it is CLEARLY not due...

 

[Kor]

Some people seem to have this mindset that anything found online is freely available to use however they want to.

Kor

 

[johnar]

Whut?

I think you could give M some more comments than "okay" and that image Were you envisioning a post battle with M here in the fan art forum as if we were in the TNZ or the Misc when Locutus is having a bad day?

I have to say your OP was a bit confusing- there will be folks who think their art is high, when the skill, talent and techniques behind them are light years apart, and there's no point to it. People have been posting art for years.

Okay.
AND raising eyebrow.
Better?

 

[johnar]

Someday someday...

Photo augmenters will get their artistic due.

Alas and alack.

 

[johnar]

Actually this was an art concept I had for a version of Trek during the Romulan War. Called Star Trek Battlestations!
Yes it is a combination of two Battelstar Galactica models from BG TOS.

But Roddenberry used salt shakers to show designers of props and even ships what he wanted.
Should we fault Sir Gene 001 for the use of someone else's craft / artistry?

 

[Finn]

Why are you being defensive?

 

[Soran77]

Actually this was an art concept I had for a version of Trek during the Romulan War. Called Star Trek Battlestations!
Yes it is a combination of two Battelstar Galactica models from BG TOS.

But Roddenberry used salt shakers to show designers of props and even ships what he wanted.
Should we fault Sir Gene 001 for the use of someone else's craft / artistry?

Salt shakers are mass produced, I don't think he used themed salt shakers, even if he did they are mostly mass produced in a factory with the artist of the original mold getting no credit.. so point taken, point overridden..

 

[Soran77]

And now that you've got me on the subject should those physical modellers who used old markers and deodorant tops credit Sharpe and Degree? No, because it's not art, it's a product designed to be disposable eventually.. as are some salt shakers.. damn dude...

 

[Michael]

Someday someday...

Photo augmenters will get their artistic due.

Alas and alack.

I have honestly no idea what you are on about. I see no-one anywhere who said “photo augmenters” are somehow not true artists or anything like that. No-one anywhere around here suggested they are somehow inferior to other artists. In fact, quite the opposite is true, people have told you that categorizing and ranking the different forms of art is nonsense. So I have to wonder if you are imagining this argument.

 

[johnar]

I have honestly no idea what you are on about. I see no-one anywhere who said “photo augmenters” are somehow not true artists or anything like that. No-one anywhere around here suggested they are somehow inferior to other artists. In fact, quite the opposite is true, people have told you that categorizing and ranking the different forms of art is nonsense. So I have to wonder if you are imagining this argument.

Skip it. {smile}