FA+
Shop
Art Theivery
16 years ago
Being an enthusist of art for years, in it's many forms, I've had a chance to see alot of the differnt aspects of it. One thing that tends to pop up alot is the concept of art copying/theft. Especially online, and in the realm of made up and fantastical characters. Before I get to far into the subject lets stop for a moment and exam art as a whole.
There are MANY different kinds of art. For this discussion I'm going to stick with using a medium to express two dimensionally a three dimensional snap shot of a scene. In essence, that is what anyone is doing when they draw, wether it be with crayons, pencils, markers, paint, or even computers. The artist is attempting to capture some moment of three dimensional reality.
As far as humans can figure it, people began to draw to tell storys and keep records of real life experinces. Such things as hunting and gathering food or handprints to represent age and lineage. They might have been scratched in the dirt, and later drawn on cave walls and such with natural dyes and pigments.
Over the years of course it has evolved from simplely a crude form of writing in attempt to survive over time, to become a means of expression. The principals remain the same though. Trying to capture a moment in time. As art evolved so did it's subjects. Moving and ranging from people and inanimate objects to landscapes, and now, even unrealistic, made up fantasies that do no exsist nore have any real frame of refrence from wence they came. Or do they?
The truth of the matter is, even though fantastic art, such a Furry art, might not have any real analogies to pull from, every peice of the whole is still burrowed from some realistic source. The only art that does not do this is called abstract art. This art truely has no real frames of refrence in any reality, and are simply forms and colors combined in unique ways.
Furry art combines features of real animals, and applies them(generally), to a basic humaniod frame. The level of melding of the two species is decided by the artist, and how the two forms blend together, in some sort of coherent and vissually pleasing manner is also up to the artist, but in most cases, the anatomy is pulled directly from either source. That is to say, wether they imagine the animal creature, or actually use some method of refrence, the skeletal structures, muscularture, and fur patterns, designs and other extremeties, including ears, muzzles and sexual organs tend to be pulled directly from a 'real' source. Add into this mix the fact that generally the subjects are portrayed in a cartoon-like manner and you start walking a very slippery slope. A cartoon, generally is an art style that realizes the unreality of the subject and allows it to take on attributes and characteristics that would not normally be seen or pratical. (Giant gravity defying breasts, waspish waists, dicks bigger than the creature it's attached to, flesh and skin with elasticity beyond normal, allowing unreal situations and events)
One of the earliest forms of this artform comes from Walt Disney, which is where a great deal of the current Furry artform devoloped from. His art style was generally very cartoony humanoid animals, who looked more or less human with animal characteristics, but maintained a very cartoony unreality. Later came Warner Brothers and their 'Looney Tunes', which kept a more animalistic featured characters and had them simply act more human. These too also relied upon the unreality of the cartoon world, often making them near invicible despite massive injuries and traumas.
The 1970-90's saw a great influx of these cartoons, on movies and more often on Saturday morning and then after school cartoons, biased for younger children, even up into the teens. As the children grew, so did the cartoons and their subject matter, going from simply wacky slap-stick, to more mature themes and situations, where a coherent plot and arching story was more important.
The children growing up with these influences in their lives are obviously those also most responsable for starting the furry animation trend. There are other sources for furry art, including pagan believes such as totem animals and older legends and fables of such things as were-wolves, and vampires, where humans can take on animal, and animal hybrid forms. Throw it all in a mixing pot and stir it up together, and you get the here and now.
The art I see now, is a combination of all of these sources mixed together. My question is, if you borrow from more than two sources, is THAT orrigonal? Or perhaps from seven sources. The truth of the matter seems not to me WHERE people get their insperation, but how closely their end product resembles what inspired their depictions to begin with.
An artist drawing a live human figure, or a real bowl of fruit, could be said to be stealing the subject matter, as they do their best to recreate the subject matter as accurately as possible (usually). With furry art, there is no base subject to come from. Everything comes from imagination. Any artist will admit, most people, unless exceptionally gifted, start by mimicing what they can already see using certain techniques defined by the larger artistic world.
When you're trying to draw an apple as close as possible to a real apple you have infront of you, so you can work on your techniques, no one bothers you about 'stealing' the image. When you try your best to imitate an art style, be it professional like Disney or WB, or more mundane, as some one you saw on an art sharing website, you are actually stealing the art. Never mind that when the origonal artist drew the picture of a nude mare morph bent over spreading her pussy, they used a human model from a picture, perhaps their own body, or their recollection of human anatomy and images of actual horses and/or their own reccollections of horse anatomy to draw the picture.
Now we get down to the nitty gritty of splitting hairs of the ownership of orginal characters and works of art. How many points of relavance do you need before it goes from imitating some form of virtual reality, to theft of anouther person's art? Do the horns, fur markings and stance, all beget theft, if the same three things are represented in a differnt drawing, but nothing else, including specific art style and subject matter?
I see some claiming certain combinations of animalistic character traits, including, horns, fur markings and sex as uncopiable, or it could be constreued as theft. I've seen arguements over stances and postions of various charaters in a same general manner as a form of art theft. What it comes down to, is people are feircely against other's copying their work.
I ask, what exactly defines original? And perhaps all artists should take a moment to realize their own influences, how they came to get where they are, and what it took for them to get there. Talent is most often organic, it is very rare for it to simply be, it requires pratice and time. Intergrating seven differnt styles into your art, is no more or less truely original, other than in the way you choose to combine those differnt styles.
The worry of your art being stolen, sold, taken credit for by others and such of course will always be there. If you wanted to split hairs on that level, I think honestly, most all furry art could come under the umbrella of Disney and WB copying and they should have an issue with you selling depictions of anthromorphic animals for money. Where does it all start and end?
I think ultimately, artists should realize the ultimate goal of their art is to express a moment. It's ment to be shared and consumed by as many people as they can, otherwise why would you put it on the net. Much like I'm sure there are artists with sketchbooks and sketchbooks full of almost completely copied art and styles used simply to pratice and get more aquainted with drawing. The notion of sharing the art then comes into relavance. Is it ok to do it as long as you don't show alot of other people? Or as long as you list that it's not your original work? What if you use the art as a templet and then change a few variables? Is it yours then? or theirs? Which amount of variables do you draw the line?
Just a few of my thoughts anyway.
There are MANY different kinds of art. For this discussion I'm going to stick with using a medium to express two dimensionally a three dimensional snap shot of a scene. In essence, that is what anyone is doing when they draw, wether it be with crayons, pencils, markers, paint, or even computers. The artist is attempting to capture some moment of three dimensional reality.
As far as humans can figure it, people began to draw to tell storys and keep records of real life experinces. Such things as hunting and gathering food or handprints to represent age and lineage. They might have been scratched in the dirt, and later drawn on cave walls and such with natural dyes and pigments.
Over the years of course it has evolved from simplely a crude form of writing in attempt to survive over time, to become a means of expression. The principals remain the same though. Trying to capture a moment in time. As art evolved so did it's subjects. Moving and ranging from people and inanimate objects to landscapes, and now, even unrealistic, made up fantasies that do no exsist nore have any real frame of refrence from wence they came. Or do they?
The truth of the matter is, even though fantastic art, such a Furry art, might not have any real analogies to pull from, every peice of the whole is still burrowed from some realistic source. The only art that does not do this is called abstract art. This art truely has no real frames of refrence in any reality, and are simply forms and colors combined in unique ways.
Furry art combines features of real animals, and applies them(generally), to a basic humaniod frame. The level of melding of the two species is decided by the artist, and how the two forms blend together, in some sort of coherent and vissually pleasing manner is also up to the artist, but in most cases, the anatomy is pulled directly from either source. That is to say, wether they imagine the animal creature, or actually use some method of refrence, the skeletal structures, muscularture, and fur patterns, designs and other extremeties, including ears, muzzles and sexual organs tend to be pulled directly from a 'real' source. Add into this mix the fact that generally the subjects are portrayed in a cartoon-like manner and you start walking a very slippery slope. A cartoon, generally is an art style that realizes the unreality of the subject and allows it to take on attributes and characteristics that would not normally be seen or pratical. (Giant gravity defying breasts, waspish waists, dicks bigger than the creature it's attached to, flesh and skin with elasticity beyond normal, allowing unreal situations and events)
One of the earliest forms of this artform comes from Walt Disney, which is where a great deal of the current Furry artform devoloped from. His art style was generally very cartoony humanoid animals, who looked more or less human with animal characteristics, but maintained a very cartoony unreality. Later came Warner Brothers and their 'Looney Tunes', which kept a more animalistic featured characters and had them simply act more human. These too also relied upon the unreality of the cartoon world, often making them near invicible despite massive injuries and traumas.
The 1970-90's saw a great influx of these cartoons, on movies and more often on Saturday morning and then after school cartoons, biased for younger children, even up into the teens. As the children grew, so did the cartoons and their subject matter, going from simply wacky slap-stick, to more mature themes and situations, where a coherent plot and arching story was more important.
The children growing up with these influences in their lives are obviously those also most responsable for starting the furry animation trend. There are other sources for furry art, including pagan believes such as totem animals and older legends and fables of such things as were-wolves, and vampires, where humans can take on animal, and animal hybrid forms. Throw it all in a mixing pot and stir it up together, and you get the here and now.
The art I see now, is a combination of all of these sources mixed together. My question is, if you borrow from more than two sources, is THAT orrigonal? Or perhaps from seven sources. The truth of the matter seems not to me WHERE people get their insperation, but how closely their end product resembles what inspired their depictions to begin with.
An artist drawing a live human figure, or a real bowl of fruit, could be said to be stealing the subject matter, as they do their best to recreate the subject matter as accurately as possible (usually). With furry art, there is no base subject to come from. Everything comes from imagination. Any artist will admit, most people, unless exceptionally gifted, start by mimicing what they can already see using certain techniques defined by the larger artistic world.
When you're trying to draw an apple as close as possible to a real apple you have infront of you, so you can work on your techniques, no one bothers you about 'stealing' the image. When you try your best to imitate an art style, be it professional like Disney or WB, or more mundane, as some one you saw on an art sharing website, you are actually stealing the art. Never mind that when the origonal artist drew the picture of a nude mare morph bent over spreading her pussy, they used a human model from a picture, perhaps their own body, or their recollection of human anatomy and images of actual horses and/or their own reccollections of horse anatomy to draw the picture.
Now we get down to the nitty gritty of splitting hairs of the ownership of orginal characters and works of art. How many points of relavance do you need before it goes from imitating some form of virtual reality, to theft of anouther person's art? Do the horns, fur markings and stance, all beget theft, if the same three things are represented in a differnt drawing, but nothing else, including specific art style and subject matter?
I see some claiming certain combinations of animalistic character traits, including, horns, fur markings and sex as uncopiable, or it could be constreued as theft. I've seen arguements over stances and postions of various charaters in a same general manner as a form of art theft. What it comes down to, is people are feircely against other's copying their work.
I ask, what exactly defines original? And perhaps all artists should take a moment to realize their own influences, how they came to get where they are, and what it took for them to get there. Talent is most often organic, it is very rare for it to simply be, it requires pratice and time. Intergrating seven differnt styles into your art, is no more or less truely original, other than in the way you choose to combine those differnt styles.
The worry of your art being stolen, sold, taken credit for by others and such of course will always be there. If you wanted to split hairs on that level, I think honestly, most all furry art could come under the umbrella of Disney and WB copying and they should have an issue with you selling depictions of anthromorphic animals for money. Where does it all start and end?
I think ultimately, artists should realize the ultimate goal of their art is to express a moment. It's ment to be shared and consumed by as many people as they can, otherwise why would you put it on the net. Much like I'm sure there are artists with sketchbooks and sketchbooks full of almost completely copied art and styles used simply to pratice and get more aquainted with drawing. The notion of sharing the art then comes into relavance. Is it ok to do it as long as you don't show alot of other people? Or as long as you list that it's not your original work? What if you use the art as a templet and then change a few variables? Is it yours then? or theirs? Which amount of variables do you draw the line?
Just a few of my thoughts anyway.
But in reference to what you're saying, I think you're making it more complicated than it need be, most sane people can understand when a character is too heavily influenced to be original, and therefore copying. I say sane because some people seem to think drawing certain animal ears on a character is 'copying' :S