Discussion in 'Transformers Fan Art' started by Galvatronimus, Mar 13, 2010.
Well I wanted to make something Transformersy and made this! It was fun. Enjoy!
Quite a nice array of characters there. I have only two critiques; Sixshot looks lonely out there in space, and I don't see any notable Japanese-only characters. May I suggest Star Sabre, God Ginrai, Victory Leo, Deszaras, Black Zarak, Overlord, and/or Liokaiser? My opinion aside this makes for an awesome desktop background.
PS: I also like how the Fallen looks like he's trying to push Prime's head out of the way.
yea why the heck is sixshot so lonely? otherwise awesome
I have to say... that is quite good. It's a very nice visual treat. Good work!
NIce, just that I don't like that BB from animated, really fruity.
Looks great. Can we see more Beats Wars, RID and Energon characters in there?
Wow, that is awesome!
I'm with Moy on this one..
BB from Animated prob is the one item we wouldn't mind removed
other than that, it's a really nice piece of artwork that's worthy of adorning any TF fan's computer desktop!
And oh yes yes, Victory Saber please!
Well I'm going to be rather critical. Quite critical indeed because technically speaking, it could be improved quite a bit.
1. It's a collage, okay. Obviously you pasted the stuff together, but that doesn't dismiss you from providing courtesy to the artists who's work you are using. Nor does it dismiss you from asking permission. Sure you've used what many by now would consider "stock art" or "stock photos", but even then you can give the courtesy to the site where you obtained it from. That's a thing with signatures that always annoys me as well "Look what I made!", no, no you didn't... "Look what I edited!" is more like it.
What is it with people and scanning copyrighted comicart, particularly on these forums? =|
2. For a collage... I at least am underwhelmed, why? Because while stating "Generations upon Generations", basically you've just randomly pasted G1 Dreamwave and Bayformers together, lumping in a random Armada and TFA here or there. Where's the other generations? Why these characters? There isn't a pattern and the goal seems missed. Instead, it's a random mixmatch of robots with a clear preference for Movie and G1. Very chaotic and unstructured. I'd say do either Movie and G1, but no others, or try to actually balance it with the other existing generations and pick a distinct selection from each and show that portrays that particular show well, while fitting in the overall setting.
3. The above is further confusing due to the following. Considering you've been piling things up your use of scale is... rather poor. You could have resized such that you would have a sense of depth and perspective.
4. Your background image, is random, but more importantly overtly noisy as it completely overwhelms the foreground. The foreground which should be the focus of your image. It isn't at all used to show the focus on the characters. You have made no attempt to set them apart from it at all.
5. The same goes for a lot of the seperate images in the collection of images. Though it's a known problem with Bayformers and you can't be completely faulted for this, it's very hard to determine where one robot ends and the next character begins. Although in collages at times this is the intention to illustrate a feeling, texture, colourpallet or shape, this doesn't seem to be the intention here, nor accomplished.
6. The texts... Basic white arial, at an angle, almost overlapping Sixshot and the only playful thing with it is using a random star from the background. Come on, you can do better than that.
bump your work artist, and as long as one person in the world (yourself) loves it, than your goal has been accomplished.
There's no ORIGINAL FANART here. There's a compilation of random official (thus copyright infringing and by law, stolen) art.
And rather sloppily executed at that. I'll gladly be a 'jerk' (read: harsh critic) to point it out and ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY MAKE SOMETHING OF THEIR OWN RATHER THAN TAKING CREDIT FOR THE WORK OF OTHERS. I find it incredibly weird that someone would get praise for that. But I may assume you're not accustomed to artfora.
I find it utterly tasteless to use someone elses work and when doing so not even taking the effort to actually make sure it's of good quality. Why is that? Because it's an insult to artists who's work you be using, WITHOUT CONSENT.
That analysis must have taken you quite some time. I bow to the level of accuracy and quality.
I think this has gotten a little too heated.
While all of what Quint says is true the artist never really claims ownership and we all know its not his art that's been chopped up.
Saying that Hokiecon this is not a place for personal attacks. And if you make a topic in an art forum its generally accepted that getting a critique is going to happen.
True Blitz and it's also true I usualy come of as uncompromising and rather harsh. I would not blame Hokiecon for thinking me rude in this case, I'm just tired of having to constantly correct people on how to credit others on these forums. =| (Also quite tired of casual bypassers praising whatever clear edit they see and crediting the posters in question, rather than the artist that made the original works, but that's something else).
Otoh, if someone posts something without stating it's not largely other people's work (even when absolutely obvious), people who do not know the art make assumptions (how inaccurate they may be). As a poster, one should never assume other people know who made it. I quite often have to correct people who think I drew a lineart which I just coloured, even if I credited the original artist in the accompanying texts, credited the artist in the title and linked to his/her page. In some cases even if it was official published linearts, of in the fandom quite known comic art(ists) and posted on fanart forums, where you expect people to know these things. :/
The artwork used in question, though in several cases 'freely available' on the internet in wikis or promotional art, is not quite used under "fair use" here. The OP could in theory be sued by Hasbro or whoever owns the rights to the comicart. There's no review or parody value involved here, nor any explanation given regarding how the copyright should be observed in this case.
Note that I am quite sure the OP did not mean malintend, but that's no excuse. It's also why my response is even somewhat mild (look up the previous actual art thief who claimed traced work as his own and denied there being originals). All the crits can be used to improve even if this piece was quite thoroughly picked apart.
Personally would hope for the OP to pick up on the crits, try again, give proper credit and doing a more thorough job then, having gained experience and feedback from this one. :/
well that was overeaction........ i dont get why your making such a big deal about it. it was just a little collage.
@Megatronski: Because everyone and their petdog think one little copyright infringement is okay, "because it's just one little copyright infringement". Consequence? They'll do it again, and again and again. There's about 15 in that one image (each individual image used there).
The whole point is that many people who post here and didn't create the entirety of their image by themselves, think it's normal to use other people's art.
It is not.
That's the big deal.
That you think there's nothing at all wrong with randomly using other people's artwork and property and take credit for it is EXACTLY the attitude problem that I'm talking about.
Cause yes, it's not just the posters of the images, it's the general attitude of other people as well who reinforce this sort of respectless behaviour towards others.
Just because you've somehow, on paper or by internet, got access to an image doesn't give you the right to actually use it.
The sole reason why I really like these boards, and don't venture in other boards is that everyone here is always polite and encouraging! It saddens me to no end to see posts like yours Quintesson #1 and subsequentally hokiecon's response. While the critique is mostly legimate I think it could have been formulated in a less harsh way. The artist in question could be 51 or he could be 11. Heck he could be in need of therapy.
While I agree with points 1,2,4 and 5, I disagree with points 3 and 6. The matter how he cut out and pasted the images, as well as his choice of typography is solely the artists decission.
Personally I find the image too chaotic. The picture seems very cluttered, which is kind of a given if you want to have dozens of characters in it.
OTOH I might not be the intended audience.
I'd like to know why the artist chose these images. Maybe they have a special meaning to him (like he owns the toys). Maybe he's printing out to wallpaper his room with. In that case all above points are mute, because you'll never be able to view it as whole (viewing distance should be twice the diameter). So you'd have time to explore i in pieces.
Yes he should have cited his sources. Never the less he altered the images by taking them out of their context and merging them into one piece of work. If I'm not mistaken U.S.-law has it, that if you alter someone elses work by more, than 30 percent you create something original.
It is difficult to determine where original art ends and plagiarism starts. Andy Warhol would be accussed of plagiarism today. Shepard Fairey's Obama poster might even be plagiarism. Almost every comic book artist could be accused of it, because they often copy their references 1:1. Rupert Endive takes posters and advertisments and puts a smilie in one corner and calls it art.
The matter is not as simple as you make it to be.
In any case if you want to keep on discussing the matter of plagiarism, I suggest you open another thread. That might even to something worth citing
I know I was harsh to the point of being rude (in point 1 perhaps! Not in the others!), but I've almost got to hold this 'credit speech' near weekly on these boards and I'm getting a bit sick of it. And honestly, a good scolding about giving credit will ensure the person will think twice of doing it again. =P With the other points, I've denoted how they could be improved, so I consider them constructive rather than plain bashing. Unfortunately, I didn't have much if anything good to say about the image in question, or I would have.
As for people being polite here... I don't know, mostly it's just "AWESOME! Next picture plz." and political correct "yay"-posts nobody ever learns from. I don't really care for such comments. I'd much prefer someone who says "You know, that's nice (or not), but you could improve that such and such.", since my interest is not to just receive praise, but to entertain and more importantly, obtain feedback with which I can improve.
Anyway, your points regarding 3 and 6 are fair enough I guess. Scaling would have IMO helped the image a lot, but there's no set rule on how to apply this with collages and that is artistic freedom. The sixth point was more that there wasn't a lot of imaginative or creative process involved there. I'm quite sure that if you can rotate a piece of text, you can also consider doing more with it. Font choice and font creation (even more so) are also strong artistic and editorial means to improve an image. As such the critique was more meant as an encouragement to do something more than use a standard font as there is clear room.
Copyright debate below.
Thing is he didn't exactly alter artwork. Yes, he took them out of context, but that's moot since half had no significant context or background to begin with, being pinups with text, where the text is not part of the image as it was written by the editor/writer. Thus: selection tool, magic wand, copy, paste, repeat for "new context" = yay 'new art'? No, it's a compilation of pre-existing art.
While US Law may allow for alterations (I think for the sake of parody and some other particular reasons, been a while since I read the copyright law), I don't believe it's a fixed 30% (how do you determine such a percentage anyway? Pixel calculation? That would mean just removing a white backdrop for example in most images would give you 50% change... yeah. No that's not the actual art that's changed.). Either way, it'll never be a truly original work, as it'll always be a derivative work.
Mind you, in essence, fanart of Transformers is derivative work of characters owned by Hasbro. Which is why Hasbro can go as far to claim to own your art as it portrays their intellectual property, they hold the right to decide who may or may not use their trademarked characters, words and symbols.
Plagiarism can even be done by just using a pose someone else used first. The old "Uncle Sam Wants You" poster is a good example of a pose that's been copied and plagiarised by half the globe. Where there are limits to the amounts of poses one can make it's not that odd, it's more common that the compositions is plagiarised, as well as the context. Much of this can still fall under parody however, which is considered 'fair use'. And yeah, Andy Warhol's popart (pretty much by todays standards puting a bunch of Photoshop filters over photographs of popular figures or images) is clearly derivative work (I personally wouldn't value most of it over $1, but that's subjective). I think he'd have more issues with portrait rights, but that's a step further.
PS: Someone who puts a smilie in a corner and calls it art, is not an artist, but a fraud and is too lazy to put some actual effort into something.
Unfortunately though, I can't open a new thread without it being art related here, as any and all threads have to contain imagery. :/
A mod would have to open one I think, which is probably one of the problems: there are no posting rules posted, leading to both ignorance and the ability to deny that such posting rules exist (because they always did).
Lets continue here.
I hope that Galvatronimus shows up again. I'd like to know what decisions he made/intentions he had in creating this piece of artwork.
The above is correct. We can move discussions about copyrights/citations to that thread.
It is considered common practice here to give constructive criticism to any and all artists here. Constructive criticism has the vector of respect and kindness towards the artist in question, even if that artist is in error or makes mistakes. A good critique points out strengths and weaknesses of work, while also being polite and considerate of the person posting.
Often times, yes, a person posts artwork and a general consensus of "oh wow, that's cool! I really like it!" can be found, and that's ok. Threads that have a positive vibe are healthy threads to some extent.
Also, if there is ever a problem with a post, simply use the "report bad post" feature. If you think that your reply will come across as harsh, then don't reply until a moderator has taken care of it. I hope my post can help everyone cool their jets a bit.
Listen I'm a grpahic artist (I'm not that good at it but I'm working on it) and at the time I made this couldn't render photo's at all. I got the renders from Planet Renders, and don't know where they got the images from but if you all want me to go and find the users, names and url to the render I would be glad to!
Separate names with a comma.