Mood: Pissy
Listening to: Something from Finntroll that I can't spell
Reading: Lost: Secret Identity
Watching: Madagascar

Forgive my cold medicine induced snark...

But you know, I really don't think taking a photo and copying it line for line is considered art.

Sure it takes a bit of skill to accomplish, but at the same time, you're basically doing what a XEROX machine can do, and I really don't find it to be all that impressive or creative.

I mean, think of the person who took the photo. How do they feel that you are essentially copying their work? You see these dumb anthro and anime artists squealing "DUN COPY ME!" for having a set of EARS that is the same as someone else, and yet these poor photographers don't even get a lick of credit for having their photos copied line for line.

Now, there is a difference between copying and referencing. I usually have google image search open when I'm drawing, and I'll be like "Go-go boots" or "Calico cat" or "Singer" or something to get an idea of what something looks like so that I can render it as accurate as possible. That is healthy and I commend it.

However, every time I draw Sawyer, I don't pull up Josh0Holloway.com and bring up some random screenshot and copy it line for line either. I find it to be rather insulting to the cameraman that took that shot to essentially steal his work.

Be creative. It's not that bloody hard. If you're going to draw a celebrity, draw them yourself. Same with cats and dogs and other animals. It's a hell of a lot more fun and interesting to come up with your OWN fur patterns than copying someone elses.

My only exception to this would be Landscapes, seeing as how it's kind of hard to dtive to the beach or the mountains and whatnot. But at the same time, it is possible to put a creative touch in the things. Just look at Bob Ross.

I'm just bitching, because I get so tired of seeing people do hand made photocopies of stuff and call it "art". Sorry, but the photographer created it first.