I saw pre-loved as being about things that have become treasures over time, rather than becoming less valuable. So, I wanted my design to be about special eras and nostalgic objects.



In the end, most of the 'nostalgic objects' got in the way of the design, so I jettisoned them, so I'm left with my tribute to a beautiful painting from the Art Nouveau era (a thousand apologies to Alphons Mucha), worked in to a design that uses the same kinds of themes from that era: romance and return to nature.



Eight colours. It looks best imo on dark green, but it's also nice on brown and dark grey. It's too busy on lighter colours, if you're wondering.



Anyway, I hope you like. I know my other stuff has been a bit rubbish :)!

Thanks for the detailed insight into your design, nice drawing.

lovely! reminds me of Alphonse Mucha

damn, I really should read before commenting!

beautiful!

Way to replicate the work of someone else. Kudos.

No need to be snide, mototrain. It is an acknowledged homage piece to do with the Art Nouveau period. While it is obviously more tightly dependent on the painting that other designs are on their reference, many designs will be working from photographs etc. in much the same way.



There is also a ton of effort and problem-solving involved in vectorising a painting and in limiting the palette to eight colours, so it's not like I just downloaded someone's work, clipped it out and stuck it on a t-shirt.



This shirt is a homage-design project about beauty and nostalgia that I think fits the design challenge well, and I hope that people are able to see it accordingly. It's not highly inventive, but then it's necessarily more creative to draw your 'own' picture of yet another zombie / unicorn / neon British gentleman.

so beautiful. one of the few designs where i don't mind the heart.

I understand it's an homage, but still, Mucha did most of the work on this one, and it looks good because of him. I would've much rather seen a piece inspired by Mucha instead of adapting an actual piece of his.

"This is irrelevant. If we are to judged by effort, a lot of people would have prints by now."



I'm not suggesting I should be marked on effort. I'm pointing out that, in replicating my source material, there is a great deal of interpretation that takes place. It's not the same as getting, say, a photo of the Mona Lisa and slapping a moustache on it.



But hey, while I don't understand it, if it's impossible to get past the replica, then there's not much I can do about it. Better luck next time for me, eh.

This kinda reminds me of when Gus Van saint remade Psycho frame by frame without esentially changing a thing. In the end you are left with the question " Why not view the original ".

Difference being that both Psychos are movies. Indeed, why not watch the original then? Your point would hold if I had just repainted 'Zodiac'. As it is, I have used the figure as part of a conceptually valid design, and I've put it on a t-shirt. Who wouldn't want Mucha on a T?



Thanks for all the comments, though, folks. Disheartening as they are.

i like it :)

NICE

I don't understand how this wouldn't have copyright issues. I had this zodiac poster in my room as a teenager. You removed the zodiac and added some brushes behind the profile.

Copyright only lasts 50 years; once the creator of the intellectual property has ceased to be able to benefit (i.e. through death), it passes away too. Copyright can persist on photographs of the object, though, because they have a different creator. Brands and icons have different rules.



And yes, I'm aware of what I did. Although you failed to mention the quite lovely roses that I drew.

Wooof!

it's a rip fucking plain and simple.



it's not a homage, it's not an inspiration, it is a cheap copy.



you may be out of copyright range but i don't think you deserve anything above a zero, let alone 2000$.

to be honest, even before i found out that you just copy pasted part of mucha's work, i still only gave you a 1 because it looked like you were just copying his aesthetic anyway.



when you're making an homage or generally getting inspiration from an artist you should be bringing something NEW to it, and not just riding on someone else's coattails.



it's disrespectful.

Alphonse doesn't do hearts and butterflies.

Geez, Ginette, don't sugar-coat it, tell me what you really feel.

I assumed the generous response to your 'Buttface' was because you're a nice person, but I've yet to see evidence of that.

cool one!

It looks very nice, definitely a $5, Donīt think it is disrepectful to adapt the work of someone else to a shirt it is not very used. Mmm, just like it!

Oh, and Ginette, someone who got paid $2000 for slapping emoticons onto someone else's yearbook photography really doesn't have any room to say what is deserving.



Just be grateful that your work has found a home, and stop being so arrogant towards the attempts of others.

I love how defensive people get when people magically don't like that they full-on ripped another artist's work. Boo hoo hoo.

Just to be clear, I approached this as a design solution, not an illustration. It was intended as a composition of Art Nouveau things, Mucha's painting being the centrepiece. So it is a copy of Mucha for a reason. It might have been better, given these comments, to do something Mucha-like, but it wasn't the point.



I wanted to create a design full of beautiful things from the Romantic era (though as I said, many didn't work in the design, so I got rid of them -- there were diamonds, an ornate pocket watch, and a gramophone).



Not all successful designs are necessarily hugely creative. 'Her Hair', for instance, is a good use of format (i.e. design), but there is nothing essentially inspired about it. It's just hair. Big hair. But it's still good.



If my reproduction and composition of a beautiful painting is also beautiful (and a little nostalgic), then that's all I was after.

Though I appreciate Mucha's work, and I can see where your defense on using his image is, I honestly don't think Threadless would print this. I don't mean to be rude, but it's just too similar. :-(

It's like you're a cover band doing Mucha. It's faithful but a bit soulless. So long as you're happy right?

I wouldn't call this a rip, I think some people have been too hard on this.



In all due fairness, you really have attempted to make something in honour of the artists work, rather than just ripping it off. You said in the description who you took this from and named the piece accordingly. A rip would be somebody trying to pass someone else's work off as their own.



Unfortunately I don't think you've brought enough of your own creative input to the piece to make it what you want.



I think redrawing a similar image on your own would be both more interesting or more original.. Prehaps the lady from a different angle? I dunno.



Good luck!

slapping on emoticons? what are you, twelve?



there's a difference between using images from an old yearbook from a very small town that no one ever bothered to copyright as the basis of a design (50%) versus using a major artist's work as your entire design. (90%) everything you've added to it seems like an afterthought.



the major points are that it is uninspired, unoriginal, not an interpretation of anything. i mean, not only is it just pasted on, but you used some awful swirls and heart silhouettes to surround mucha's image.



it's so half-hearted.



but keep picking at all my designs individually, it's really helping your case.

Oops! I never got to read the first few comments on this. I really thought it was an original work inspired by the great Mucha.



Now there's a storm brewing....

There is a very fine line that divides hommage and plagiarism.



You just crossed it.

If you're going to draw on top of a famous illustrator's work, maybe next time pick someone more obscure to steal from. Lazy rip-off and lazy about who you chose to rip off.



This has been a problem on Threadless for a long time now and I'm glad to see that most people understand how wrong it is to poach someone else's hard work, even if the copyright has expired. Do you think you are entitled to make a quick 2K off of an extinct artistic genius?



Why not study Art Nouveau next time, learn something about the movement and do an original take?



Blatent ripping should be an issue close to the hearts of the real illustrator's here, as we get closer to some MAJOR copyright laws being attacked. Stop this kind of soft thinking and entitlement, stop Orphan Works from changing copyright, and stop Google from stealing everyone's books and posting them to make money. If you didn't create intellectual property, then you should be prosecuted for trying to profit from it, pure and simple.



(Perhaps far removed from this somewhat more innocent attempt, but this is how it starts)

"If you're going to draw on top of a famous illustrator's work, maybe next time pick someone more obscure to steal from. Lazy rip-off and lazy about who you chose to rip off."



That would be to suggest that I was trying to steal something without anyone noticing. You're completely misconstruing what this representation is about and how I approached it. I'm sure I have to rethink these things, but at least give me the courtesy of not calling my motives into question when I clearly gave acknowledgement of the original artist and why I was using it.



There are plenty of designs in Threadless that use the intellectual property of others in a new way. There's one highly praised one that combines Deschamps' urinal with the Birth of Venus. It's a funny concept, but it's a 'straight rip' of two works for a new purpose. No one made any of these kinds of complaints. Why? Because the concept was better? Why would that excuse it?



Google Books provides a massively helpful service, because many books are out of print and impossible to get hold of (for others it operates as a 'trailer', giving you a taste of the book before you buy it). The authors are sometimes even already dead. Is it better that no one benefits in any way, or that books get a continuing audience. What about You Tube? It benefits from others' property. Should we prosecute them? There are countless mutual benefits involved in the recycling of intellectual property. Your indignation is a touch naive.



I have studied Art Nouveau, albeit briefly.

Ugh. I really like Mucha. Really like Mucha. I like this design because it looks like Mucha. That's a problem, I think. Mucha created very romanticized images with an incredibly detailed line weight variation and deep color. If you had used this distinct style and rendered it a world in which it were unexpected or ironic then it would be fine to recreate Mucha's style.



If you look at my old submissions you will find one of a grizzly looking old caveman. I found that image in a book of public domain images. I still re-illustrated it and if you look at the comments left on that sub you will see I was given quite a bit of hell. It does not matter what justification one gives for what they do - people see what they see, and attacking them for what they see is where you lose potential followers.



The point is you made a design, it's done, you can never take it back... just let it be. If people call you out for reproducing then don't do it again.



I mean this to come off as a way to help you grow a stronger contingency. I guarantee all the folks you're throwing down with and insulting will look at your future designs through shit shaded glasses.



Best of Luck, and great reproduction work... there is a place for this... this just isn't it.

You should work on your photoshop skills... the images of the models are sloppy. Take the time to make your work look good.



That's all.

Ooh. Deschamps is a footballer. Duchamps.



Thanks, elemenopy, that's helpful and true.



On the Photoshop thing, point taken. Do you know where one gets better quality model images than the submission kit? Do people just use the catalog images?

By the way, just to be thorough, that design to which I was referring (if this works) is:

No? OK:



http://www.threadless.com/submission/89252/Botticelli_VS_Duchamp/showmore,designs

Yeah, I hate that one too. It pretty much blows on all fronts IMHO. Epic fail, as they say. Sometimes the artists with a sense of respect for illustration and design (or decent visual puns!) are busy working on other art or are asleep at the wheel and lame stuff gets through unnoticed.



Whether your effort was truly in earnest, or you are just another monkey reaching for that 2k banana with a cheap idea, we can never know.



Maybe there should be a sister site called "headless" that draws in all of the one-liners, plagiarists and text shirt ideas. Their prize can be $100.00 and a coupon for a pair of Crocs and a sixer of Budlight.

"Maybe there should be a sister site called "headless" that draws in all of the one-liners, plagiarists and text shirt ideas. Their prize can be $100.00 and a coupon for a pair of Crocs and a sixer of Budlight."



Classic...

Well Zero, you get the same models as everyone else. It's just your photoshop skills that need work... It'll take some time and getting used to. Don't just use the magic wand - like the name suggests it's just an illusion. Get in close with an eraser and really clean up the image. You can throw in a drop shadow after if you need to. You can also using a clipping mask and paint the area you want to delete. But that will inevitably require clean-up in the post as well.



Dude, it's like this... practice, practice, practice.

mucha would turn in his grave.

it is not fair! Mucha's work in your hands, itś little bit crazy, but mucha looks good ...

One of the best designs I've seen so far!

First off, ginetteginette is great and has a great printed design which I own.

Second, I'm sorry to come down harsh and I know this sounds repetitious but you didn't change the painting enough to call it yours. It is 96% Mucha's painting. Also, as one of the sub designers on Threadless it is fair to say that everyone deals with difficulties in color limitations and vectorising problems, it is all part of submitting.

I really don't understand how you can even call this your own design when it really doesn't belong to you.

And, this is nothing like using a photograph for reference, I think you know that.

@Helmut. I'm sure Ginette is lovely to her friends, and all power to you if you enjoy her work. Unfortunately, I've come across rude comments from her often enough. Many other people were able to treat me well while pointing out their objections to my design. There really is little excuse for being unable to separate people from their ideas, and so being scathing and unpleasant to a person when you object to something that they've presented.



You, for instance, were able to express yourself in a severe but friendly manner towards me without resorting to swearing, or words like 'cheap', undeserving, and 'disrespectful'.



Fact is, people have used bits of classic paintings on threadless before, and if I'd had any idea that this would have received such a response, I would obviously not have bothered. It was an honest mistake. I didn't even consider that people might construe it as some kind of theft. Never crossed my mind. [Ironically, Mucha wasn't even part of my original idea, which was to design a montage of beautiful things from history. I was going to make a VW Beetle the centrepiece, but someone else got slagged for using one, so Mucha popped in there eventually, and then dominated]. So, I've learned a lot through this exchange, and I appreciate those people who have treated me well in their critique.

ok i LOVE this. but yes. its too close. possibly do your own girl in his style? I would buy this, but Im worried about copyright infringement since its near exact. someone must own rights to those pics... i dont know.....but if it gets printed Im buying one!

Yeah, I think taking Mucha's painting and adding a different background probably won't work on a shirt. I'd prefer to see something Mucha inspired instead of a collage of stuff.

esskayeesee on Jul 05 '09

It's like you're a cover band doing Mucha. It's faithful but a bit soulless. So long as you're happy right?



Couldn't have said it better myself.

There will be a shit storm if this actually goes to print :)

Thank you for your response. I think the idea of 'collage from history' sounds really interesting and I think you should pursue it. Except, I would make sure not to use to many appropriated images mostly because of this design, people will slaughter you if they see anything in the future that is too borrowed. I really like the history idea for pre-loved though, you go for it.

Also, ginette isn't really my friend, I really love her work though and own one of her prints too :) I guess I really don't understand all the trash talk from everyone, that's all.

Thank you for your response. I think the idea of 'collage from history' sounds really interesting and I think you should pursue it. Except, I would make sure not to use to many appropriated images mostly because of this design, people will slaughter you if they see anything in the future that is too borrowed. I really like the history idea for pre-loved though, you go for it.

Also, ginette isn't really my friend, I really love her work though and own one of her prints too :) I guess I really don't understand all the trash talk from everyone, that's all.

sorry about the double post, Ooops.

Glad to see you've learned that this won't fly here. If it's an honest mistake, so be it. Obviously you weren't trying to hide the fact that it was Mucha (title gives it away) but Threadless (and the community) are really after designs that are conceived and executed by the designers here.



Using logos and symbols directly relating to the competition (IE, the VW bug) is something that Threadless discourages (it's on the competition page). To be honest, when I see a design that is relying so heavily on someone else's work, it leads me to believe that the artist doesn't know what they're doing, or doesn't have the artistic ability draw/create something all their own. That may or may not be accurate but that is the conclusion I jump to. People can be quick to jump to conclusions about "appropriated" art as many people have tried to pass artwork off as their own - not your intention.



Start again, keep subbing - but be aware that something this close to an already created work, will not fly.

Well..I had done something similar with a DaVinci work, but made it my own. It was necessary because I WANTED the correlation to be drawn between the two works. I did alter the piece significantly tho. On another note, I submitted twice for the pre-loved VW competition. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how some stuff gets through on here...and how some stuff gets stymied.

"There will be a shit storm if this actually goes to print :)"



Not much danger of that, I'd imagine. Maybe I can donate my work to the Mucha foundation so that poor Alphons can stop rolling in his grave :)



@Helmut. A few people have since done something similar (nostalgic objects), and I now have a severe distaste for all things Nouveau. So I'm moving on to cats. Even Ginette digs cats.



@Chengui. Thanks, mate. That's helpful. It's been about 7 years since I was a designer, and even then actual drawing took a back seat, so I'm a bit low on confidence, to be honest. (I also haven't got a stylus or a scanner, so getting drawings up in a good state via my digicam's is less than ideal). So maybe tracing something was just the chicken option for me. I'm now drawing again at least, and I'll just trace my own drawings :)

love it! $5

I sub'd an original design that was done voting 5 days early... This is still in the running. Interesting.

I would have like to seen something completely original.

@Elemenopy: my other sub (which seemed like a good idea when I whipped it up, but is obviously overdone and tired upon reflection) also got shut down super early...



I'm not sure why they let this one through in the first place if this kind of thing is frowned upon.



I might be getting pity votes or enough 2s based on my fastidious replication to keep it afloat. I wouldn't sweat it.

I love Art nouveau

Aside from this work being mostly a rip off, the other crap you did in the background (swirls and butterflies) look like tacky clip art from the 90s. And if that part is indeed original, it looks like vector pubes from the 90s.



Zero.

Ouch... but funny... gotta admit that is some funny sh*t.

'Vector pubes' is quite a highlight... From now on I shall never use them unless I also use a vector dong.

Wow, people need to gear down. Nice try tho, but it's a bit of a rip. Good luck in the future!

OMG beautiful! I would love to see it on purple or black!