hahaa, wow. At the end it should say "Alright, but now do it with real paint and wood and don't use photos."

the end result looks way creepy.

the end results are pretty lame and crappy-looking so i don't think they pose a very great threat.

I agree.

I also love the pictures in your profile with the kitties!

I guess the reason it's bugging me so much is that NOTCOT put the link up on twitter, like it was something special. An I usually love NOTCOT :(

Wait, so you're saying once someone has created something in a certain style, no one else can ever mimic or reproduce that style ever again?

I fail to see the issue with this, especially as the author links to the original artist's site, and spends the first two paragraphs discussing their appreciation for the artist's style.

I mean, the person opens with "I really love them so I tried to modify a picture to recreate her style. " That seems fair enough.

http://www.notcot.org/

And so the debate begins...

Yeah, Lucretia Mott has some good points. Interesting interesting...

I resent it because the author of this tutorial (and others like it that I have seen) is basically reducing the artist's work to a paint-by-numbers "anyone can do it!" sort of thing. It is not.

Re-creating is one thing, being the originator is another! (Counterfeit Louis Vuitton, anyone?).

it looks like total shit. i don't think audrey need feel especially threatened by it.

i don't mind the idea of being ripped off, because as the originator of a style you ought to be able to keep one step ahead of the copycats. they'll always be chasing while you lead.

I don't like either the original or the recreation, but I have a real objection to the commoditization of procedural knowledge. I don't think there should be any esoteric subjects, and often times I feel there's a propensity within the artistic community [as in any community of highly skilled/specialized individuals] to want to keep trade secrets.

Whatever, open source that shit, motherfucker.

Sorry Lucretia, I disagree. Actual creativity, as in coming up with an original idea, is not a learned skill. Let's use writing as an example: just because you understands grammar and syntax doesn't mean you can write like any acclaimed author. I'm sure that if you read enough of their material, you could even imitate their style. BUT coming up with the idea for the story? That's where their personal insight - their creative idea - would set them apart from you.

I don't think there's anything wrong with learning "trade secrets", if by "secrets" you mean methodology, but I do think there is something to be said for leaving an artist's original idea alone. And I say this in the context of the art that I posted above. Come up with something new!

I'm all for "standing on the shoulders" of creative people before you (I mean, this is another take on art-nouveau, IMO, for example), but a tutorial like this is akin to a paint-by-numbers of the Mona Lisa (if you want to get hyperbolic). "Psssht that da Vinci was a hack! see? I can paint one too!".

I'm not making any claims about originality, or who is original and who isn't and how much that matters, or about creativity and what is creative and what is not and how much that matters, I'm just saying I think it's perfectly alright to disseminate techniques-- in fact, I think it's awesome. What you do with the technique is up to you, and I'm sure a lot of people don't do creative or original things...but that still doesn't mean it's somehow unseemly to spread those techniques.

Also, I'm pretty sure you can learn to be more creative. It's just a mode of thought....you should get better at it with practice, like any mode of thought. 'Intelligence', 'empathy'-- I don't think of any of these things as being something one 'has', but just thought patterns.

...all these nouns are more like verbs, in my books.

If the original artist wants to show her method there shouldn't be any issues, there's people who do that (Ray Frenden for example), but a third party teaching other how to copy the artists style is lame, bothersome and insulting to the artist.

I take you either don't really take part in creative endeavors or you take part in biting and plagiarizing, otherwise you would see the isue in this (or maybe you just want to argue).

I'd like to see you grab paper and pencil and take years to develop a style of your own only to have some fucker tell everyone how to replicate it cutting all those years. It's not like she's keeping the cure of cancer from everyone, just a tyle she worked hard to develop on their own.

That cat gif syncs up almost perfectly with the music I'm listening to right now. I am both amused and a little disturbed.

no big deals here.

Um, done?



I don't know you can check out my flickr to decide whether I'm creative or unique enough to have an opinion on intellectual property

I wouldn't really care. The secret to my 'style' is stippling, a nearly psychotic fondness for texture, and tiny, tiny teeth. Rip me off all you want.

Oh, I should have said "to answer, your question, I wouldn't really care [if 'some fucker tell everyone how to replicate it cutting all those years. ']

I mean.... I don't know, is the artist upset about this? If so... then maybe there's a point in here somewhere, but I'm not sure..

So you doodle and you're telling me what I'm already seeing in your doodles, that's the same. For starters, your "style" clearly shows quite a lack of style and a lot of the basics, unless you're one of those poeple that call their lacks a style (I hope not), "Is not that I can't do crisp lines, I just prefer to make them all squiggly, that's my style". And yes, sometimes the imperfections and misproportions are indeed a style, but you can tell when it's well and intentionally done.

I would say my style is much more disctinctive, unique and developped than yours, and it's still nowhere near from being fully fleshed-out and mature (in my opinion at least); and yet I'm sure I would be to the very least annoyed if someone was telling people how to replicate my style (in progress).

Now imagine how someone with a fully fleshed-out style would feel if suddenly there was an overflow of cheap knockoffs of the style she spend years developping. And what if with time those lame biters became really good at it and started taking away her clients and pissing over her means of living. Of course as an artist she would be constantly improving and evolving and trying to be one step ahead from the biters, but if she reaches a point where she has to step aside of a style she worked hard on cause someone fucked her over I would imagine she wouldn't appreciate it much.

There's been a lot of talk about the biting subject on emptees lately, if you're really interested on it and what a bit of insight of what other people who dedicte to this you can see the latest blog on it here. There's more but I'm lazy to look for them, and other have been deleted.

I liked this one:

"If you loved me so much to copy me, why not respect me and not copy me?"

Maybe I'm being a bit defensive, I mean if it's just for recreation, there's nothing wrong with drawing/painting/designing for such and such to pass time. But when you try to profit with it that's when it turns shitty.

Thing is, if you're putting it online you don't know what people would use it for, and if the original artist hasn't shown how to do it it's best to respect her and let her be the one to decide if she wants or not to share her methods.

d3d on Sep 13 '09 at 5:47pm
it looks like total shit. i don't think audrey need feel especially threatened by it.

Yeah I understand that money and credit make the situation more tense, but this seemed to me to be a fairly clear case of art for fun. I mean, it's not even the same medium [as in, you wind up with a bunch of binary, not a tangible piece of art] so I don't understand how this tutorial is 'biting' [I will look more deeply into what this means in a second].

I don't know if this is biting either, but I wouldn't even mind if it was a tutorial on how to actually make something that was similar to hers [wood, and paint, right?]. I mean, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the majority of people who read tutorial/diy blogs are people that make things for themselves, not to sell [although this may be wrong and my argument only really applies to these people]. I think it would be great if everyone could make something they wanted, be it a painting that looks like another artists [ I mean, can't most people not afford "art" anyways? I know I can't, except for at DIY craft fairs, and I think you would liken those more to "doodles" than art.] or a table or a computer. I mean, haven't you seen star trek? Replicators!!! We should all be our own replicators.

I mean you're right and I'm not an artist for a living, but I hope to earn a living as a programmer [well actually I hope to make a living off this electronics hardware company my friends and I have started]..

Either way, a programmer or electrical engineer and an artist make money in a not too dissimilar way.. actually the same way: sale of intellectual property..

I really, really like open source. I'm sure you've heard of it, but just in case open source is when all the source code or schematics of your hardware are all available freely. They are yours to take and do as you will. A company called Arduino makes these development boards [for electronics] for hobbyists and artists and stuff. I think this is biting in the art world, or graphic design or what have you, but our company makes a board very similar to their board, with a development environment basically the same just reworked to work on our board. I mean the board isn't exactly the same [ours has a really cool bit of hardware that's reconfigurable called an FPGA], but it's definitely based off of theirs. We were able to do this because of open source. I think this is fine and in fact awesome, because I feel like intellectual property is such a weird capitalist construct and it also hinders progress [at least in areas like computers], and I am all for people making their own shit and if someone else did it first, you can make theirs better. Again, I'm speaking not as an artist but just someone else who develops and hopes to profit from intellectual property.

Anyways, the only reason I commented in here was because the tutorial reminded me of open source art and I thought 'yeah! open source everything!'. I didn't mean to touch a sore spot for you.

Anyways, the only

You're not getting it. The person who posted the tutorial has reduced Audrey Kawasaki's finely-tuned style to "You can do it too! Easy as one-two-three!" Kind of insulting, no?

Though the artist may not take offense (who knows?) and she certainly has nothing to worry about (obvi - the result is pretty crap), the site is still getting traffic from this person who is "teaching" others how to copy her distinctive look.

Google "Audrey Kawasaki". See that spot where there's a description of the site?

"Paintings of women on wood with a consistent, distinctive style."

Obviously it's something in which she takes great pride.

Haha, I'm also speaking as a person with not a period to spare. That paragraph is like 3 sentences total.

No, they compressed it...not reduced it. It's not the same thing at all, it's a less 'consistent' and certainly less 'distinctive' knock off that exists in your computers memory.

I don't see how this is threatening or even insulting.. The author seems to suggest pretty strongly that he/she is only emulating the artist's style, and also credits the artist, making no claims of their own.

You're right, I don't think I get it. I don't really see what's wrong with "teaching" how to recreate a distinctive look to amateurs with photoshop.

Unless you're concerned about someone doing that and then selling it as on a shirt or a mug or something, and you don't want them to profit from another's style?

Well, I can't object to that too hard because I don't see why we should prevent people from flourishing, especially in this scenario because as far as I know the artist doesn't make shirts or mugs so I don't see how the second person [biter] harmed the first person [artist], but I understand why that would upset others.

Your comment at 8:59 wasn't there before.

You make some good points (and I must add that I'm glad this has turned into an interesting debate). I get the open source thing, I really do.

It's just silly to me to post a tutorial like this because, as someone educated with an art and design background, I feel that things like this reduce the value of the original artist's art in the eyes of the public. With the perceived "ease" in which the tutorial-poster "recreated" the artwork style, an untrained eye (read: mind) would under-value the artist's original work.

It's really easy to make a fake Louis V bag, a fake Eames chair or a fake Alvaar Alto vase, reproduce it and sell it for cheap. It's the original idea that has value.

But I digress. Design is an area that walks the line of art and invention. Let's not go there.

The point is, the person who made that site should be posting tutorials of her own art, not how to copy someone else's.

I agree with Lucretia Mott. It's basically just a straight forward tutorial on how to create a particular style. That's all.

Damn I typed a response but my internet cut out and I lost it.

Basically, I just said that you are the one projecting value into those scenarios; obviously some people value the mere existence or possession of the object, or in this case its appearance. Others, such as I suspect you, value its creation and what it took to achieve that. I suspect those are equally valid ways to look at it [or care about it] because I doubt there's any objective value in anything, but maybe that's why I'm not too upset about this.

Also, I also would prefer it if the blogger in question spent time making improvements, not derivatives, but that's not really any of my business.

ha! On that one, I must agree.

Hi,
I'm the one who has wrote the horrible tutorial.
First of all I'm a drawer before a photoshop addict, then I can say on an informed basis that a drawer with medium skills (so probably even a good drawer) isn't "scared" that someone try to copy his/her style, because the thing that makes their works special isn't the technique but their own hands.

I chose Audrey Kawasaki rather than another artist or rather than inventing something because I think that in that genre of tutorials the most important thing isn't the result, but the steps. I could have started explaining just how to use a quick mask or when is better using the magic wand tool rather than the lazo, but it wouldn't be funny. When we write a tutorial the passages are the most interesting thing because people can improve the use of a tool or starting thinking how to use it.

The choice of Audrey was just a pretext. I love her, and I respect her work. I just thought it could be a nice subject that allowed me to explain certain techniques. I've not open an on-line shop when I sell copy of her works. And I'm not divulging the secret of her style, even because she doesn't use photoshop to create her works, but oil and wood. No one can improve to draw an artist fake with my tutorial (even because, like someone could say: it's an horrible tutorial and the result is just ****).

The fact that my final result could be poor, badly done and so one in another thing. I tried to make a good tutorial even if you don't like it.
And, lastly, if my text is there is because the owners of the site (it's not mine) has decided it was a good tutorial for their standard (because they don't publish everything people send them).

I think I've said everything I had to say. I joined this site just to have one chance to partecipate in my defeat. Thank you (and sorry if my English isn't good).

art nouveau + anime =Audrey Kawasaki Style

No, they compressed it...not reduced it. It's not the same thing at all, it's a less 'consistent' and certainly less 'distinctive' knock off that exists in your computers memory.

I don't see how this is threatening or even insulting.. The author seems to suggest pretty strongly that he/she is only emulating the artist's style, and also credits the artist, making no claims of their own.

You're right, I don't think I get it. I don't really see what's wrong with "teaching" how to recreate a distinctive look to amateurs with photoshop.

The above totally sums up my feelings on the subject.

Shit got real.

wordy

There are words in this blog.

Hi, I came from the tutorial site and I must say I really liked the explanation, but them I have seen the comments they left there about copying someone's work and I couldn't understand why they where so angry about that, as I saw lots of people here too.

Well, actually the first thing I thought when I looked that was "Wow, I didn't know you could make such a drawing from a photo", them it made me want to use the same techniches to produce my own kind of work.

What I want to say is that people like me who goes to that kind of site are actually interested in looking for applicable techniches with the programs, to improve his own work. His intention clearly wasn't to recriate exactly someone's work, first because its near impossible because a draw style is something extremely personal, and second because everybody who likes art, including him, have their own style and don't wanna give it up just to copy other's work.

That's my opinion. Sorry for the terrible english, lol

angeluzend, had I know you would read this blog, I would have used some less-harsh language but my points would have been the same.

I'm not bashing your tutorial. I love PS tutorials. In fact, I think the tutorial is quite good. It's the art has me getting my back up. I won't repeat the opinions I expressed earlier, but I will repeat my conclusion: use your own art!

Please continue to share your techniques. You haven't been "defeated", only discussed. But use your own art.

Also, thought a totally different situation altogether, this reminds me of the The Greatest Connection uproar a (pretty long) while ago. That one is blogged here and... the original blog is gone. I'm posting the link because the issue of a "style" being copyrighted never came up in this thread, which I thought was interesting. That issue is brought up a lot in the linked blog, and I think it's an interesting read.

I think Mel really got shafted in that whole Greatest connection fiasco although there were a few extra factors, like that Anke Wenkman had done another picture with the hair as mobius strip/infinity kind of thing. But overall, I don't think a style can be owned by an artist, only what they do wih it.

It does trouble me to a small degree when what artists do can be reduced to something mass-producable and therefore commodifiable and therefore cheap.

But then, something made in Photoshop will unlikely look as good as an original painting unless just as much time and effort was put into it. The really great digital painters can create art with their computers and tutorials like this will give people the basics, but like you say they recreate the work "badly" so it's not really a threat to the original art. But it may teach people new techniques and they may learn more advamced stuff and they could turn into great artists themselves and they'll probably incorporate a lot of different influences and also develop their own unique traits along the way.

So overall I think it's good I think.