DID FRANK FRAZETTA USE PHOTO REFERENCE ?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ส.ค. 2024
- Hello and welcome to this second video devoted to the artist Frank Frazetta.
In this video we will try to answer the question of whether he did use photo reference in his work or not.
It is quite a sensitive and controversial subject but I wanted to address it before going further and analyze his art.
I’m not trying to undermine the man reputation or lessen his ability or talent. In my book He is still by far the greatest illustrator of the 20th century.
I’m just trying to demystify the myth that great artists do not use references and the stigma that comes with using it.
Your input, questions and comments are welcome.
Please subscribe for more videos tutorials, art studies, movies and comics reviews.
Follow us on Artstation: www.artstation...
Follow us on Instagram: / bekkouriikbal
Frazetta # paintings #drawings # fantasy# sword and sorcery # illustration # photo reference
Fair use disclaimer:
This video is under fair use:
Copyright disclaimer under section 107 of the copyright act in 1976; allowance is made for “ fair use” for purposes such criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in fair use.
All rights and credits go directly to its rightful owners. No copyright infringement intended.
Yes, he used references. No, he wasn't a slave to references. Meaning, he didn't just copy them. He used his knowledge of anatomy, prospective, and lighting. professional artists use references. Its an amateur mistake not to.
A reference photo is just another tool, a way to make sure your work is on the right track. More of a guidepost than a recreation. Besides, making a carbon copy of a still photo kills the dynamic elements and leaves the figure static. One thing Frazetta does better than most is using varied amounts of detail and polish throughout the illustration to direct the eye precisely where he wants it to go.
yes i totally agree.
The answer: He only needed photo reference around 10 percent of the time. However once he used a photo for a certain pose he didn't need it anymore. As his memory is pretty good. I found this out from Frank Frazetta interviews, his friends and family. I noticed people think because he used it a few times it means he did it all the time. I think that's just a small amount of jealousy coloring everyone's opinions. Frazetta said he could actually see his figures posing, Like a projection. He's known for having a very strong visual imagination. It's possible he had hyper phantasia. It's not a myth that some artists don't need reference. Bernie Wrightson is another example. On a news interview he said he can see an image from his mind like it was an opaque projector. I think all the naysayers just need to admit some people have better memory than they do.
I do not believe Frank Frazetta was being a hypocrite when he dissed reference photos. I believe he was meaning the use of photos of other people from magazines, movie posters, etc. to make an exact duplication. Frazetta often took photos of himself to see how muscle flowed to ensure he got things right. There is quite a difference between posing for a photo to keep an idea flowing and borrowing or outright stealing a pose from a published photo or drawing.
yes that is the point.
Totally agree… The compositions are completely out of his own mind, and that’s the point… All artists that wanna create something looking a bit realistic uses photos or living people to look at proportions etc… For other people this might sound like using references… For artists this doesn’t really count for references, it’s like using a dictionary to check the spelling of the word when you write a book… Your still wrote the book on your own, without references, you just checked some facts…
An artist using photo references is no different than a writer using a dictionary. One can't write a novel just by copying a dictionary... one can't produce a successful artwork just by copying photographs. These are just tools to check our knowledge and fill in the gaps. This notion of "cheating" is absurd.
Thank you for the video, it was very interesting.
very well said, i couldn't agree more. the people who still believe that the measure of a true artist is not using reference are delusional.
This is important for artist's to understand. I remember watching a documentary with him when I was first starting my art journey. Hearing him talking about not using reference is the OPPOSITE of what beginner artist's should hear, and it paints the idea to laymen that great artist don't use reference in their work. Great video!
His quote about not copying photos sounded like he was saying he doesn't copy photos like a photocopier, leaving him using photos as reference to be true. It's like the difference between tracing and drawing from reference.
As an artist, I'm surprised that his use of reference photos was so taboo that he felt the need to deny it! Photo reference is a practical necessity for commercial artists! In fantasy and sci-fi illustration, one has to improvise by mixing and changing details, such as colors, costumes, props, and scenery. Fine artists paint hired or hire models for portraits and nudes, travel to locations for landscapes and seascapes, and use bouquets and bowls of fruit for still-lifes.
The pulp cover illustrators used them often. Paperback cover artists.
I can't believe that in 2022 we are still having this debate. Frazetta was a master of fantasy art for decades his art still resonates with the audience as much today as in the past. The debate around whether he used photo reference or not is pointless. This speaks more to contemporary paranoia and imposter syndrome than the ability of Frank or any other artist.
Artist don't need permission to use whatever technology is available to them to make art, it does not diminish them as an artist in any way. Whether it was Filippo Brunelleschi with rules of perspective back in 1435 through to David Hockney using his iPad today.
I concede it may be interesting to know how an image was made but it really doesn't matter and it certainly doesn't reflect badly on an artist or their art.
@@petermarten729 "It takes more skill and talent to work without refrence". Just think about what you have said here, then think of the giants of the art world. From Michelangelo and Leonardo through to Pollock and Hopper. Refrence is the foundation of knowledge whether it is a live model or a photograph. This attitude would have us all drawing perfect circles in front of an audience before taking on commissions. Artsist really don't need this narrow thinking any more.
@@uk3dcom dont bother. these three musketeers have one motto "Frazetta is a fraud"
it is cute to see them united in this post. be careful, they don't like it when someone resists and rejects their view and agenda.
by the way Mr Hust and mr Dave, i am still waiting for your challenge and samples of your original work to prove your claim. we all do. i haven't seen anything yet and I doubt I will...
@@petermarten729 Why would any artist/creator have to 'hide' the fact they use refs? I use them all the time simply because I don't know what every possible thing in the world looks like to be able to paint it accurately, its absurd to call anyone a fraud if they rely on using references as that would mean every artist on earth is a fraud. Because everyone uses reference even if they think they don't!
Frazettas figures always seemed to be more 'dwarfy' to me likely because he used real life proportions instead of the usual 'eight heads' one most use in art, and yes he likely also used photos to references pose and proportions, which is perfectly fine.
We have to remember that Frazetta was an old era artist, and back in those days, people were really arrogant and prideful in general, he was a product of his time, so of course he'd say he never used refs, simply because most of the other artists back then all claimed the same and did it on the quiet, they were worse than the twitter posters today when it came to tearing one another down and 'cancelling' each other careerwise, they were real cutthroats back then simply because they're were far fewer in the business and were more competitive.
I was at his museum a few days ago and his son Frank Jr confirmed that he absolutely did use photo references.
Frazetta said, "copying" a photo, not, "using as reference". There is a big difference in copying a photo/model, and interpreting it. Interpreting is where the "Art", happens.
It’s not controversial at all…..just about every artist who produces professional work for book covers etc, uses photo reference. What Frazetta meant was slavishly copying a photograph.
I doubt that Frazetta ‘struggled’ with anatomy….usually for a published piece it’s a time saving device and to find the correct pose. As a professional artist myself I know what I’m talking about.
i agree but as controversy goes, you can see it exemplified in some comments here, in some extreme reaction of professionals such as DAVE DFW who seems to take it to heart and considers Frazetta a fraud., a crook. so as I said that is quite telling why some young artists avoid saying they use reference. and yes Frazetta didn't struggle with anatomy but for the lack of a better word I meant that most artists cannot master realistic anatomy 100 percent, there is always some blind spot when confronted with a difficult angle and particular lighting scenario.
Perhaps you are right about it now. I'm not sure though. Maybe it matters more to artists. David Apatoff in his Illustration Art blog has some interesting discussions and commentary on these matters on the art of magazine illustrations and comics as well. He celebrates and examines their originality and prowess. Why I got interested in it was I kept hearing from a few young artists in the late 80s that the old masters drew everything from their heads. I started my research then and discovered this wasn't true. I've always been interested in the psychological thinking behind this. Also it's like magicians talking about how the magic is done. Perhaps some sense of the wonder and magic is lost when tools and devices come into play. I find the subject fascinating and was happy to find someone talking about it in terms of artists like Frazetta. It's a close call when it comes to some artists, relying on it more than others. Loomis explains the problem of using the camera and how to fix what it distorts in terms of making drawing not look like a copy of photos. So I think many illustrators mastered this trick of using the photoreference but fixing what makes it look like a reference. Like with any other technical skill, some are better at it than others.
I've just dug up a page Xeroxed ages ago from an old encyclopedia showing a transparency overlay of inked art on a photo of the live actor playing Hook from Disney's first Peter Pan. What's interesting about this is you wonder how much of the the cartooning of the human face underneath is influenced by the live model's expression or any of his features or is just pure imagination. Or it serves as a basic guide. The actor certainly doesn't look like the caricature type Hook drawing on top. The actor is dressed in some costume like Hook's. He is sort of sneering I think. It looks like an inked drawing on top of the photo. You can clearly see how the artist distorts the head and torso size while following some aspects of the reference. It may not have been "shameful" in the past. In an old Alex Raymond comic they show photos of his working with a live model and then they show the finished drawing based on the reference. So I wonder if at some point it became an issue for artist. I suppose they had already worked out the cartoon hook head and this is a motion reference. The artist follows the head closely, though.
I thought it was very obvious he used himself as reference alot. He even talked about this.
I don’t quite understand the “problem” some people have with using photo reference. I’m an artist and I use them all the time, mostly my own photographs, for example of fabric and certain lighting conditions. We can’t always align our time to paint with perfect circumstances where all the needed subject material is at hand. And sometimes we have no access at all to these things. I think it’s extremely valuable to use photographs as the accuracy of our sight isn’t always 100%. I think it was Magritte who used projected images of his work in order to create large murals and many artists do the same thing with photos for painting portraits. The brushwork, the style…this is always unique, no matter how the reference arrives.
i agree. this is why i made this video, not to bash artists or say photo reference makes you a bad artist. it is a valuable tool when it is needed. some people have a problem with it because they think a talented artist doesn't need it, but guess what ? artists are not gods, they are limited by their visual memory. if you dont know what an element look like ine real life, good luck faking it in your painting, i will show...
@@jimhust8321 excuse me, but I have BA in Fine Arts. I am not a hobbyist, and even if I were, I’d be proud of my work however l managed to learn. But I’m a professional artist. I’m also disabled and don’t have access to many things I want to paint. When my care worker does take me somewhere, I can’t bring that back unless it’s a photo or video. I can’t bring home a stream or a tree I see in the park or another beautiful vista I might only see once, and only for fifteen minutes. Please try not to assume.
@@bekkouriarts1634 exactly, and I really appreciated your video. I understood that’s what you meant, l was responding to some of the comments l read, mostly. I think it can only improve the final work to have a reference with something you’ve remembered incorrectly. The mind can do odd things. I have a visual memory where I remember visual objects in reverse. With me, it’s really important to have that reference, before I understood it, I’d give everyone two right hands or something. I loved this video, my apologies if it came across as critical of your work, I did not mean that at all. Fake definitely shows, I agree:)
@@DeidreL9 no apology needed my friend. i understood what you meant i was also responding to others' comments. Thanks for the kind words and good luck with your work.
@@jimhust8321 it is funny to see such hypocrisy. aren't you looking down on him now for using it? oh because he lied about it, we feel betrayed boo hoo. it changes everything, we are supposed to cancel him and discard all the art he produced. heck, we should even assume he couldn't draw at all.
as for the bread heads like me, I must say you are really fast at judging people you don't know. but I guess it is becoming a revealing pattern.
For your information, I know what he did is immoral but I chose to move past it, sue me.
and oh I didn't make this video to make money off him, I genuinely love his art, it hangs on my walls.
also regardless of what you think all i wanted with this video is to spread the word to young artists that using references isn't wrong since even a master like frazetta did.
Norman Rockwell....Michangelo...Vallejo etc. All used models or photo reference. We can't know what everything in life looks like from memory. A person that has no talent can't reproduce a photo..........
C'mon....of course he used references and there's nothing wrong with that. All artists even the great masters use references, models etc...
No disrespect to Mr Frazetta....but he used references just like anyone else.
Of course he did. We ALL do in the illustration field, mainly due to deadlines. No shame in using photo references, to insure reality and detail. Again, WE ALL use whatever is necessary to meet the deadline.
To use photos correctly you need to still know how to draw and interpret shadows /form. An inexperienced artist who tries this will end up with a flat 2d drawing/ painting. I have seen artists that use a photo too much and they end up with distortions and bad proportions especially when you are talking about fore shorting and such. You need to know what to keep and what to correct.
who cares.He's still the boss.And no, not every artist use photo reference.
Frazetta's paintings explode with dynamism, power and mystery. A sense of looking into another fantastic, alien and exciting universe. Boris Vallejo tried to copy his style and failed miserably (in an artistic sense) with static, boring, uninspired compositions. Frazetta changed fantasy art forever. Kids bought the Conan books for the cover art, the stories by Robert E. Howard were almost an afterthought. Whether he did or didn't use reference is irrelevant.
Every artists I've always admired used black and white photos for referencing. Boris Vallejo does. But it doesn't really matter. I look at the finished product.
So what exactly is the problem, with using a reference while creating an artwork?
personally no problem at all, and if you look at the end of the essay you would get your answer.
We know he and his wife both posed for model photos. We've seen some of the photos. Regardless of his methods, his art towers.
exactly, but it seems Mr Hust has a serious problem with that, instead of contributing with proof and valuable information in a civil manner, he cowardly attacks everyone who doesn't share his warped view thinking he knows the ultimate truth. that tells a lot about his persona.
Also, you cant just plop someone down in front of a model or tape a photo to a easel and expect the same results. To translate what you see into art isn't a given, it takes training, patience, natural talent and determination to achieve these results. Its definitely not cheating or a short cut - its a tool.
@@totalandroid1366
what are you talking about? what actually shows he knows what is right or wrong? because he said so? that is the mark of self-righteous men.
what gives him the right to be the judge and jury? because he thinks he is better? what gives him the right to talk down to people?
every time he speaks he immediately deviates the conversation to talk pompously about himself and his pseudo achievement, all we hear is me this, me that, me, me, me ....he thinks by doing that he'll pass himself as an authority in the field so you don't have to argue with him and if you do not agree he openly attacks you,
it is funny, when i confronted him about it , he quickly deleted his incriminating comments and played the innocent victim. but there was still proof. let's see him deny that. that tells you a lot about his narcissistic persona.
this might work on naive, easily intimidated children and on unsuspecting trusty people but people with a brain see through him and his tactics.
you know the only thing to shut us down, to prove his point and make us extremely jealous is to show his so-called exceptional art. i dare him to do that.
@@totalandroid1366 what do you mean? that he will actually give us proofs and prove me wrong?
sorry to bring it to you but to open your eyes you should read the other comments and see his ridiculous idea of a challenge and undeniable proof.
he's been exposed. he wouldn't even do what he said. i am still waiting, we all are genuinely dying to be proven wrong. but it is highly unlikely it is going to happen...
@@totalandroid1366 are you serious, what kind of convoluted and meaningless sentence is this?
the subtext of what i said shows i know he got the skill of Frazetta? 🤨 it doesn't make any sense and surely doesn't contain any logical argument.
so here is logic and here are facts: first i don't know him (just like i don't know you), never heard of him, and for sure never seen any of his pseudo works other than words coming from his mouth.
so i am asking you, tell me, how am i supposed to know he is what he claims to be? am i supposed to be a medium or something or am i supposed to take the word of a stranger on the internet as absolute truth?
excuse me but in the absence of concrete, visible proof of what he claims (his original artwork, not copies or ripp off of Frazetta's work ) , anyone with a sound mind is not going to believe what he says.
for the sake of clarity and to dispel any misinterpretation about artists using references, we need to identify what reference we are talking about, what type of reference is mostly used, and which is not by an artist depending on his mastery and the field he works in.
so are we talking about live models? or photographs?
are we talking about human anatomy or animal anatomy references?
are we talking about lighting and shadow scenarios? or maybe color palettes?
are we talking about environment, landscape, or architecture references?
are we talking about everyday life objects?
how about clothing folds dynamics or just cloth patterns?
so the question is, does an artist totally master these elements? or acquired a visual library that encompasses all that exists in the world with all its intricacy and subtlety?
i dont think so, one can master several of these elements but he would still need to look out for some of the other elements.
one can master anatomy, lighting, and perspective but does he know for example what the inside of a baroque building looks like or the intricate pattern of a mosque's wall? does he have a clear image of what an airplane engine looks like?
i think the general idea is when people talk about reference they tend to think about anatomy since it is the most appealing and most difficult to master., and forget about all the other elements that are as much important.
this is an important point and it's the kinda of thinking I would want from a study of this subject and it's history...
He could draw from photos daily, it will seeps into your memory, once you draw something it's in your mind, you can then reproduce from memory ...technically... no reference
Of course he did. Everyone does except for a very very few exceptions. I have a book on Pin Ups here at home together with a book called 'The Sensuous Frazetta' (dealing with women in his art). One his drawings is identical to one of the Pin Up photos. If you draw certain poses a million times they get stuck in your brain but the human body can take on so many different angles in so many different setting that it's impossible to get all the muscles and shading right all of the time without help. Artists throughout the ages have used many tools to help them achieve results quicker and better: light boxes/camera obscura, photos, live models, other people's art, tracers,... A real artist always stands out because there's more to it than just 'getting the proportions right'.
Exactly. If you have a vision in your mind, you may have the general look and feel, but the details are impossible unless you’re a savant than can literally memorize everything they see. If I’m not mistaken I believe it was Leonardo DaVinci that said ‘One cannot draw what one cannot see’. Even in comic books, as crazy and wild as a character/monster can look all the elements are based on reality
The photo reference debate comes out of the mid 1800's when the debate started as "if you can just photograph it why paint it? The painting is just inferior copy of reality." Illustrators weren't considered "real artists by the art critics back then and today many critics still consider illustration something other than "real art. That's probably where Frank's insecurity came from. This use or not use photos has little to no impact in the professional art world. Pros use whatever works.
yes you are right and obviously the stigma still lingers on.
a photogrpah might be an accurate representation of real life but it is the unique and personal visual interpretation of an artist that interest a savy audience. it is not about copying a photo but what you envision and take from it to make your art.
There’s a great example of Frank using photos in Spurlocks book Fantastic Paintings. One of the major disappointments I got from the new Taschen book is that it covered nothing of his photography. I guarantee you there’s a treasure of unreleased photos. When I took a course with Vincent Desiderio, he stated he always drew from his imagination. He said create your drawings from imagination and then find reference to finish the drawing or painting. That’s what I do.
yes, sketching your idea first then finding useful reference is is the right and best way to go.
1 out of ten times he'd use it. You'll see him mention using photo reference from time to time in his interviews.
Someone with no inherent artistic talent can look at photos all day long, and nothing will happen. There is no shame in using references when needed to enhance your ability. Use a reference for certain elements and try to ween yourself off of it, if you can. But this is another tool in the toolbelt of a creative person, no different than a paint brush. The work happens in your minds eye, then filters to your hand, and the tool in your hand, reference or no reference.
Controversial take: what does it matter if an artist, professional or not, uses referenced of any kind or for any reason?
it doesnt. thats the point of the video
The difference here from most guys using photos heavily is, that he first did the sketch, the poses etc, and after that made his own reference with his own camera and colleagues. Today many digital artists, just fiddle together images they find on the web, and are limited to the poses they find. And that is probably what frazetta meant by "copying from photos", that the photo was there first, and the artists just does a copy of it, whilst he made the pose, the painting, all that jazz, and then, when he found it necessary, made the photos to help his painting come to live. I think that is one thing that needs to be distigunished.
the whole thing is a problem made up by the clueless admirers and beginners. another thing is to fully trace a photo - which tbh is a very common thing on the tube-artist scene. to fully fledged copy a photography seems for many to be the epitomy of art
we need to define something here for the sake of clarity. tracing or copying exactly a whole photograph is not the same as using it as a reference for an already established sketch or layout. even then a lot of variables come into play like the artist's vision, style, and craft. the trick is to know when and how to use it. ideally, it is useful in the final stage when you render things out, it is helpful to fix things out and add relative accuracy and realism to your drawing. still, you need to know what to take out and leave out from it, in another word you use it, you don't let it use you. and i think Frazetta was successful in that.
Jun Gi, Kase2 among other artists did it all off the dome. Pure visual memory. So, yes it's possible for superior men to make great work without referencing photos. Although it's no artcrime to use reference at all. Tracing, theft and AI are all big no no's though.
your comments show that you didn't see the full video or get its message. i expressed it from the start. on the contrary i am for the "smart "use of references when it is "needed", just like Frazetta did.. and i am one of his biggest fan reference or not. read my other comments to see me defend his art and legacy against some nefarious haters.
Naturalistic accurate figurework is impossible without photo or real life reference and always has been. The forms are too complex to conjure up. Artists like to hide this simply to make themselves appear more talented. Just like landscape artists need a landscape before them, commercial illustrators relied heavily on photo reference and models for people. You even had comic strip artists from the early days like Milton Caniff having models pose for plenty of shots in the panels, and those were still quite cartoony. Frazetta just had a massive ego and there are people who like to perpetuate myths about him, including the family who control his 'brand' now. The guy was just a commercial illustrator, not some genius, and even if he had been a genius, he'd need reference.
kim jung gi! " hold my beer"
Kim had use references a lot until he didn't need it anymore.
If Frazetta used photos I would love to see the women who posed for them.
i think he used his wife as a model, there is some photo of her online you could see that he used her for some of his pencil and watercolor pieces, i couldnt show them in the video because of nudity. however most of his glorius curvy women was him inventing, exaggerating, and embellishing the anatomy
When you provide photographic references that resemble the poses in Frazetta's paintings, your assertions are persuasive. But to contend without any photographic evidence that anatomic and lighting corrections between the sketches and the finished works are "obviously due to photo reference" is not convincing. Many artists are capable of improving the accuracy of their images without photo references, based simply on their knowledge and skill.
i agree. we'll never know for sure. and you will notice that is why when talking about it i always use verbs like i assume or he might have...
I knew he used photo reference, but as you mentioned not as much as and to the extent of tracing like Julie Bell, and Vallejo. Frank was a real prodigy like Mozart etc.Hus sons said he was also kinda mean when it came to teaching them art, but let's face it reference or not he was The One.
yes he was.
There's a copy and there's reference. Just plucking a photo from Pinterest and doing the exact same thing is a copy, plain and simple. If you place it, and take photos yourself, with your own idea in mind, I'd say that's fair game.
theres no "cheating" involved, it makes sense to use reliable references . this guy knew just how much to exaggerate, and enhance the human figure, very dramatic and skilful
Hey Bekkouri, I just wanted to say this video is incredibly interesting, not just for the subject matter (as Frazetta is an artistic legend) but also for how well you have put this together! Idiots in the comments are only embarassing themselves by being confrontational. Every single artist has used / uses reference at some point when creating their art, whether they be musicians, architects, dancers and/or graphic artists. Inspiration is a human virtue that comes from appreciating someone else's talents/gifts and wanting to replicate them for yourself ( in your own style). One of my favourites is KIM JUNG GI who draws without reference, however, he explains constantly (in interviews) that he has spent his entire life creating a mental library of reference, that he has built from constantly studying, observing and drawing from live studies. You are obviously a great fan of Frazetta's work and I can tell that you don't mean any disrespect with this video. You are for one, obviously trying to dispell the idea/myth/nonsense that using reference makes you somehow less of an artist; and two, maybe calling Frazetta out on some bullshit he said in an interview many moons ago! Haha! Who knows man, the guy could've been having a bad day and just wanted to look cool / try and impress / create some controversy? The 70's/80's were a crazy time! Anyway, great analysis, fantastic video and keep up the good work!
thanks for the kind word, much appreciated. yes, i am a great fan of Frazetta, i have prints of his famous paintings hanging on my wall, i look at them and enjoy them every day. i don't care if he used reference or not. if he did, i don't judge him for it. he is talented and his art is unique and proof of that. no one can deny that or even claim to be his equal.
@@bekkouriarts1634 Always a pleasure, thank you for your reply and for producing great content! It's too easy to be negative in today's world, so I like to try balance that out with some positivity where needed! I grew up reading my Dad's Conan comics and was always fascinated with how spectacular Frazetta's compositions were. Looking forward to watching your Review and Analysis of the movie Conan the Barbarian! The casting of Arnold alongside the costume department in those movies was so perfect for me, almost uncanny how well they portrayed Frazetta's art style. So much so, that when I was a kid I didn't know whether the film was based on the comics or vice-versa. haha! If you haven't seen it already you should definitely check out "Conan Unchained - The making of Conan the Barbarian" (th-cam.com/video/jiQ9rUgQcXI/w-d-xo.html) I watched it last week and found it to be a very interesting and insightful documentary on the behind the scenes of the movie. 😀 And you're 100% right Frazetta's artwork is truly masterful in every sense, regardless of whether he used reference or not. It doesn't make his work any lesser or greater either way, as it is perfect just the way it is!
@@thegeordiegypsy2398 yes i already watched Conan unchained documentary some time ago. it was very insightful. and also i hope you like my review and analysis of Conan the barbarian.
I don't have any problem with artists using photo references, but it's not completely necessary to be accurate if you're looking for realism... take some of the italian and spanish baroque painters. Velazquez made his pictures without doing sketches on the canvas, for instance... usually used models for his portraits, but not always.
I think that references are not needed when you're going to develop a theme that you know very well because you did it before many many times.
Also anatomy is difficult, but perspective is maybe tougher, it's of great help using some kind of reference to struggle the minimum
I think Frank even used bodybuilding magazines like Muscle and Fitness and Flex as I would see almost exact poses and musculature from some of my favourite bodybuilders later showing up in Frank's paintings. Many great artist use references from photos or real life.
I'm working now on a video about Frazetta's proficiency with portraying violence for my God Loves Comics channel. He was quoted as saying he didn't like photo refs because he wanted things to look fantastic and unrealistic. But clearly he modeled so many protagonists after himself. And his comic work featured the kinds of punches that suggested a man who either studied boxing photos or had a photographic memory for the bizarre almost surrealistic distortions to the face experienced at the exact moment a punch landed.
yes, one can see in several drawing where the figure or the protagonist looks like him/ have his facial features, especially in comics like johny comet and the playboy illustration...
Artists use references..
@@jimhust8321 yes..
@@jimhust8321 sorry.. GOOD artists use references..
@@jimhust8321 lol noone believes your words first off.. 2nd off, a cartoon character like donald duck doesnt need reference, but drawing a character like Simba from the lion king DOES.. how ridiculous are you? award winning artist? lol..
yea I drink water all the time.. and Disney artists actually sat down at the zoo to watch lions as they animated for the movie THE LION KING.. ARTISTS USE REFERENCES..
@@totalandroid1366 and at the end of the day, any REAL artist wont give a crap if YOU or anyone else THINKS we use references cuz we ALL USE EM.. ridiculous.
I have a frazetta how to book from years ago. His ideas, some photos and live models also, for references …. I see no issues with it
..no such thing
This is a silly premise to start with. *_ALL artists who work in a realistic style use photo reference._* The notion that they do not is the foolish deceit of an amateur.
that is what i am trying to say but some bitter people seems hung on lynching Frazetta for it.
Yeah bad video, not worth watching.
There are clearly people that can create from their imagination, its a technical skill you can develop like anything else. You need to study/practise from references and from your imagination, drawing from your imagination shows you what you know and what you don't know. Just look at Kim Jun Gi.
yes, that is the goal of every artist.
Photography being Frank's hobby,he used it to study poses,angles,effects of lighting and etc. Then he would apply the knowledge he learned from that to his art. But I don't believe he would "reference " any photos while actually painting his illustrations as he felt it would hinder his personal vision or tighten the work too much. And that shows in his work. I believe that's a big reason why he would rework some pieces later as he refined his knowledge in those areas later. I personally wish he hadn't in some pieces as some lost their earlier looseness. That said, I'm sure he did "reference " photos when doing a work involving a real person as that is needed to capture a truer likeness. Nothing wrong with that. Some people I've known in my life as an artists think that even making an under drawing for a painting is "cheating". Laymen just need to stay quiet most times,lol.
to Mr. Jveenem and others. i m not gonna debate with you since you obviously didn't watch the entire video or listen carefully to what I said. your silly attacks are born of ignorance and misinterpretation. at least view the video and do some reading before spewing nonsense, and if you don't get it, you'll find in my other comment what was my true intent, at least read the answer to *Andsendme* comment, he, on the other hand, did get it and had something valuable and interesting to add to the discourse...
What a wonderful response to some very nonsensical and ill-willed individuals. More power to you and keep up the great work!
P.S. I'm subscribing to your channel just because of this comment and I hope that your channel and art keeps growing and becomes a great success!!
P.P.S. Don't let the haters drag you down, because they are only jealous of the skills and talents that you possess! 😀
@@thegeordiegypsy2398 thank you very much. i'll do my best.
References to poses could have been from family, friends (including girlfriends), various magazines (including "nudie" and "fitness"), and movies or television shows. Learning how to draw classes or references often show or advise the student to refer to medical anatomical models/pictures. They also use the various mannequins for proportion. All student references that, once learned well, may never be referenced again and tossed out. In fact, all of the references could have been hidden away when visitors came by or tossed out, leaving no trace of their usage.
How do you know that?
@@Pwntious Could. And common sense as an artist.
@@Pwntious Every artist uses refrence,that's just a fact of art.
There´s nothing wrong using photographs for your work, in fact, it makes sense. You can´t draw a battleship from World War II just from... imagination.
People have been making great paintings long before photographies. I think you underestimate the skills of some, and their imagination.
@@almost_harmless Before then Artists would go see whatever it is they wanted to draw or sculpt and take References from the object in Sketches, notes, and other ways. life drawing was VERY Popular before photography, i might add. a GRAND MASTER can learn how Anatomy works well enough to draw without a Reference, but even then if they're having issues remembering something, they still go back and look, go to their notes, or some other way to figure out how to solve the problem. very. VERY few artists have a photographic memory. and even fewer are "Grand masters" even the artists of old that time will never forget. even Statues had "Sketches" look it up.
@@Glitch-Gremlin That´s right. Eventually you will memorize the muscles of the body, but after drawing from many references.
Artist of old used tracing by projecting images with mirrors and magnifying glasses before electricity and other inventions...
@@almost_harmless Before photographs, they used live models and grid method... they literally had a wooden frame with wires on it, forming a grid. Look it up. "Old masters" cheated every way they could. You overestimate the meaning of skill. NOBODY can draw an accurate [insert random rare animal, machinery, vehicle or plant) out of memory, if they never even saw one. Stop being stupid. You can't memorize how every fucking thing looks, no matter how talented you are. You won't even KNOW how every animal looks, in your entire lifetime, even if you dedicated your entire life just into that. There is 8.7 million animal species, you won't know even 0.01% of them. Or how every car model looks. Draw me a Blastolene B-702 without reference, oh great master. It's one of the rarest cars in the world, I bet with your "skill" you already know how it looks lol... That's not how skill works. It's completely different thing, memory and drawing skill are completely different things. Humans have very very very limited visual memory. It's enough for maybe to learn human anatomy, if you practice very very hard. Then you're required to draw a proboscis monkey, and you're screwed without reference...
thanks. I agree. the old masters used reference, had regular models pose fot them, most of the great paintings are done with the help of using reference. Frazetta used references as most artists do, sometimes he even swiped from old masters. I didn't include this information in here but i 'll include it in other upcoming videos talking about artists influences...
Photo lenses are not human eye lens ,I think the eye is about 8 Millimeters ,so live models as references MIGHT BE (Might be in caps due to my own uncertainty) ,more accurate. Anyway I was surprised to discover one day that Gauguin used photographs ,Vermeer had a glass plate with a grid on it to paint his portraits ,Canaletto used the Camera obscura ,a darkened room with a window covered to keep the light out, the window cover had a small hole in it ,that was focused on his canvas ,he probably used a lense of some sort ,even earlier artists used cast shadows ,the shadows were used to help block in a picture. It is not the how ,but the result . There is a quality and a method signature that makes the work unique to a certain artist. Frazetta was a great artist.
I can point out where he got some of his references from . He got some of his reference from lady Butler's horses.
Isn't there a book he published where he actually showed himself photographing models in poses he eventually put into his paintings ? I'm almost positive I saw something like that.
Great video. All great artists used models to reference their art. Not everybody knows a model who would like to pose for them, not everybody has the money to hire someone to do so, using photos is the next best thing certainly in this day and age where taking a picture is as simple as picking up your phone. I don't see any problem with that.
neither do i but it seems some people do. sadly the stigma of using references is still strong. no wonder why insecure artists avoid saying they use it.
Lol peaple are very naive "" reference"" its just a justificative thas the art paint watching a referênce. Litgh table, camara obscura, glass canvas, they basically many of the times where paint over the refence... Yes they traced and nothing worng with that tha are no rules. Art its not a competition off skill. Do everything you need to get de art you want cheate, Steel, copy.
Artists use models all the time for paintings and objects for still life. I don't think that their work is any less for it. " Digital painting " or cad now that is questionable.
There is no human with that kind of memory who could remember stuff without decades of working from references. But of course, guys who can figure drawing of humans only and mostly naked without complex gear or environments.
There are many masters of realism who would never use photo references, because photography was not yet invented when they were around. They used live models as artists still do to this day. Frazetta might have done the same, along with photos and his studies of Bridgeman anatomy books. To what degree he used which is irrelevant. The end result matters.
@@jimhust8321 who knows? To ME only the endresult matters. How Frazetta felt about it or why he chose to hide it, I have no idea
@@davedfw814 and why are you still here? a sophisticated guy like you should take the high road and leave the stupid mob wallowing in their ignorance.
Proverbs 27:4
“Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?”
amen
I think, Frank was referring using photo references for his compositions. Not using references for study.
Thought my left studio monitor was broken for a second there.
I Don't think we, as Artists understand just how Psychological Art is.. and the PROFOUND impact not believing in yourself can have on your Art, Personality.. and Success.
for a *LONG* time i thought Artists "Studied" Anatomy and Reference Photos and somehow Stored all of that in their heads, only to use it later.. my Dad who Drew a lot thought the same thing, even though he drew from Reference all the time! its easy to believe what you've been told your whole life by non artists or people who haven't actually been there.. you got your entire family telling you that Artists just imagine shit out of nowhere and that's how Art is made, when you actually go to school or read books... TEACH yourself or you're taught, that's completely untrue.. now Granted after drawing for decades at a time you can start drawing with Reference at times. depending on how many times you've done a subject.. but ive never seen an Artist who doesn't use Reference for something, even when they've Practiced their entire lives. i cannot tell you how discouraged i felt growing up, not being able to just draw things out of my mind without any sort of reference.. it was only when i started copying the art i saw others doing that i got better. but like always you have people diminishing your accomplishments "Oh you're just TRACING!, oh you had a REFERENCE!? so you mean you didn't just imagine this in your mind and draw it? YOU USED GUIDE LINES!?" when those same people couldn't draw a Stick Man. its really sad how Petty people can be. most would rather Stomp on a Flower than see it grow into something beautiful. just because their Garden is full of Weeds.
Its just come to mind that he had to paint his celebrity caricature pieces from some reference unless he actually met them.
There are too many architectural, costumes, weapons, anatomical details in animals and human figures in Frank Frazetta's work that is hard to believe he never used some photo or other references.
Every artist uses reference for something at some point. Frazetta never used reference as a crutch of any sort. Most of your examples contain less than 15% of used parts of any photo. You should produce videos on Greg Land and Greg Horn as examples of artists who rely on photographs.
yes, that is the point of this video as stated in the begining. besides this why i said in the end he didnt need them and that he used what he needed from the photo.
SInce Frazetta is not around to defend himself, I'm going to have to take his word for it. The only artist I know for 100 percent that doesn't use reference is Kim Jung Gi, that dudes brain acts as photo reference.
Kim jung said himself that he used so much reference that he doesn’t need it anymore lol and he also observes everything he sees in real life
using reference is not the same as using photo, you should do a better job at description. While every human being uses references (how would you draw a tree if you have not seen one?) that's not the same as to say that Frank or any artists use photo references. Frazzetta did not. Kim jung gi, a live artist, does not. He uses imagination and memory. You should look these up. References are a must, present or acquinted by memory. Photos are not. The debate, however, seems boring and dumb. No one creates a masterpiece by just copying a photo. Frazzetta at that is untouchable.
i am not going to discuss semantics here but when we talk about photos reference we meant referencing elements from photographs to detail your drawing /painting, as opposed to plainly copying the whole photograph without adding your own style/touch.
i agree with what you said and if you read my other's comment you'll see i said the same thing over and over again.
as i said in the video, Frazetta didn't need areferences, he was already a terrific artist but to make his paintings realistic and even better he might have used references.
oh and i know about Kim jung gi, i'm a fan. no one can deny his talent and extraordinary visual memory. however, let's not forget he has a cartoonish style ( mind you, there is nothing wrong with that) and he mainly works with inks.
if he had to use color /oil paint or try to render in a very realistic way, that wouldn't cut it, he would have to look at references. there is so much intricacy and subtle detail in real life. visual memory is limited and is no substitute to the real thing.
@@bekkouriarts1634 New subscriber here,
I'm just curious but what are your feelings on Alex Ross and his IMHO dependence on photo reference?
He's something of a favorite modern comic artist of mine but I really feel his nonstop use of models has become something of a crutch for him. (unlike Frazetta)
My favorite Ross piece would probably have to be a painting he did of a Captain America Jack Kirby piece of art which just because it was taken straight from Kirby's pencils was a thing of beauty IMO.
Anyways thank you for a fascinating video.
@@cha5 thank you for the support, much appreciated. sorry, i didn't reply earlier. my mistake i didn't notice your post among the others. but better late than never. right?
i think Alex Ross a terrific artist but as you said he is depending too much on photos. nothing wrong with it, he has the ability to interpret it and distill it in his own style.
personally, i think his best work is done with DC Characters. his style is just perfect for them, and you can see he loves the characters so much, especially superman.
his work for Marvel is good too but I don't think his style fits their characters.
but again that is just my personal taste.
however, I must confess that I did like his latest covers for the immortal hulk. they were amazing.
and i did also enjoy his Buscema covers recreation for Conan.
He did and he was a f#####g legend about it. The imaginarium of fantasy is heavily indebted to this man's vision, hard work, and talent.
Realize, it doesn't matter much. Whether you use a photo to easily transfer all the reference distances at once, transfer them one or a few at a time using the edge of your thumb as a scale, or work them out visually and keep them in your head, it's all about the same.
It's just a data set. There's very little actual flex in 'I did all the data in my head' versus 'I had all the data on a piece of paper', at least for art. This is the kind of crap that impresses those who don't really know any better.
The data set transfer of the raw scale and proportions is actually the least artistic part of art, despite the fact that it impresses a lot of people.
The visual staging of the subject before the reference, and the artistic interpretation after the reference are the more important parts of general art.
The basic transfer of sizes, proportions, and alignment are pretty much mechanical. Only when you alter them on purpose or create unreal works focusing on them are they really that artistic and important.
Think of Michelangelo. It was the initial artistic posing and set up, and the finishing. Lots of other artists got proportions and alignments as well as he did, but their works still are much lesser compared to his.
It wouldn't really matter much to the work if Michelangelo did it entirely by memory from long practice, or had used some form of camera obscura effect. That's a basically mechanical part of the process either way, most of the art of art is in the other aspects.
It's not that there isn't some aspect of it to art, but it's the least artistic part of art.
Give 10,000 people an opaque projector and they can almost all trace the outlines etc. But almost none of it will be art. And only a tiny number out of the 10,000 would be able to produce art that was obviously well above the rest. IOW the easy reference just makes it easier for actual artists, it doesn't make a non-artist into an artist.
i totally agree and already expressed that in my other comments. the purpose of this video (that some people seem to not understand, or simply do not watch the entire video) is to show that reference whatever it is a tool, and there is nothing wrong with using it since even a master did use it.
I'd add, the images you show as his first images aren't the first images. He sketched extensively.
probablt so. yes
Whatever Frazetta was doing, I have yet to have seen replicated.
yes that is the point he was unique
@@jimhust8321 Ive seen it imitated if thats what you mean, smart ass.
A painter is a painter . An illustrator is an illustrator and will use any possible means for a final result . The camera obscura has a long history in art .
Uhm... almost every artist uses (or sometimes uses) reference. There's nothing wrong with that.
yes, that is what i am trying to say but some pretentious bitter people here feel personally betrayed and focus on frazetta been a fraud. boohoo, grow up...
In the fire and ice documentary F.F. states he took pictures of himself for reference. I think he used his wife for the women.🤷♂️
yes i assume he did
Many of em did anyway, no biggie, especially Fazetta's works they're amazing and awe-making. It's problematic when the poses makes no sense to the context --surely lacking artistry and imagination.
If your goal is to create something that already exists, as it exists. Than drawing from reference is the obvious choice. Personally, I think something is lost when you constrain yourself to reality. But I know, not everyone feels that way.
Rembrandt Van Rijn used complex mirror arrangement to reflect his visage to canvas. He still painted those works. Answer to Frazetta using reference material is so what. He did paint those works.
Rembrandt didn't need to trace. Your information seem poorly researched .
@@djo-dji6018 Why he wouldn't have done so? He had technology to do so and he was craftsman dependent on getting work done. If it makes his work easier he would definitely have used it.
Don't try to defend tour "argument" by claiming "geniuses do things the hard way".
@@vksasdgaming9472 What argument am I defending? I just corrected you, there's a lot of wrong info on the subject.
@@djo-dji6018 "Rembrandt didn't need to trace. "
What makes you say he didn't? Oh, he was damn good at his work.
Interesting video - thanks. Frazetta stated that he did not consider copying a photo art. In my opinion, copying a photo and using photo reference is hardly the same thing.... Or am I wrong?
you're correct. copying a photo is simply taking a photo and replicating it exactly. in this process you are more a photocopier, or a skilled craftsman than an artist. you are not adding anything to the process, you are simply processing an image. in this case you would be more an artist with a camera, since you are compositing, lighting, choosing colour.
its the same vein as a construction worker and an architect.
Precisely.
no, you are right, copying a whole photograph bit by bit might have some technical value but using it as a reference and personally interpreting it and incorporating its element in your work is another thing. i think most people are not interested in seeing replicated photographs as much as they are attracted by someone's artistic and personal vision of said photograph.
@@jimhust8321 Agreed with the reference part, but Frazetta stated he didnt "copy photographs", which I only said is different from using photographs, objects, models, etc as reference.
@@jimhust8321 Since you are closer to the subject matter I defer to your opinion. Thanks for the insight.
Let's see your artwork , sir !
😆😆😆 There it is, the "if you're so smart let's see your stuff!" comment ...
So tired of the "you can't critique unless you can do better" crap...
are you talking to me or to DaveDFW? I am confused.
if you do, you misunderstood me. I don't mean to criticize Frazetta or lessen his talent. on the contrary I like his work very much reference used or not.. and I don't mean to lecture anyone as I said many times. i merely expressed and shared a personal opinion. as for my artwork I never said it was exceptional or better than Frazetta as Dave claimed more than once. still, if you want you can check it on artstation site. the link is on the banner of my channel.
He was a comic book artist. So he did draw alot of things out of his head. Which sometimes caused overexagerrated figures which I have grew to dislike.but he interpreted most of the time .
i agree. frazetta obviously didn't use references all the time.the man could draw and his sketches attest of that
I would say no he didn’t use photo reference. He was a comic book artist first. He had quick deadlines. Besides what would you use? Frank Frazetta was a genius
@@jimhust8321
using reference doesn't matter.
the end result does.
@@jimhust8321 Don't be ridiculous, practically every artist from the Renaissance used references. Obviously, their references were limited to live models and painting from life (landscape, still life, etc), but the effect is the same. Photos are convenient, but as references they're actually inferior to old school references because a compressed, static image can never compete with a real life model.
@@jimhust8321 I didn’t say every artist used references, though the vast majority of artists I’ve met and worked with do. The methods of the Old Masters are well documented, and they most certainly did use referential material. Do you really believe that Caravaggio painted without the aid of models, props, and stage lighting?
I’ve talked to Disney and other Hollywood animators, and they most certainly do use references. Perhaps YOU personally don’t use references, but many, many artists do, including most of the greats. Do you think Bierstadt painted the Yosemite valley purely from made up images in his mind?
@@jimhust8321
There are some artists, even on this very site, who TRACE. Which I consider to be far worse than freehand drawing from a photo.
Plus, it is self-defeating; you don't learn how to draw in proportion correctly. How to scale things correctly, when tracing. Some of these so-called artists who trace make big money selling there "works". They know better than me, I guess...
@@jimhust8321 and here is the speech pattern again. why do you always have to brag and make it about yourself? we have yet to see proof of what you claim. let your art speak for you. personally, I am still waiting for the (challenge )samples you said you will provide to me (in secrecy).
If you're a good artist, you should be able to produce the same level of quality from observation of a model posing in real life as you would from photo reference. Photo reference buys you time and convenience. It makes everything easier. If the illustration has to look real, you bet the artist is using every tool at their disposal to make sure that they will be paid. The point is that the art should be BETTER than just a copy of the photo. Artists also know how to use what is important and ignore what is not. Producing art from looking at something is easy. Copying is just practice. When you shoot reference, you shoot the same subject from different angles, getting all the details you need to produce your image. Sometimes you might want to copy someone like Frazetta to learn and understand what his thought process is. You'll gain insight into someone else's mind and you won't get that from a book or a class. But you have to use that knowledge in your own work, not try to be a knock off doing the same subject matter in the same style.
That’s an arbitrary condition that you’ve placed in what constitutes a good artists. I challenge you to apply truth values to your premise. I contend that it’s invalid because there are good artists that can’t produce the same level of quality from observation of a model posing as they would from photo references, and this is evident in the outcome of what they produce, and the value the market places on the final product. In other words, In an abstract sense, I’m comparing a writer that writes an essay without sources to a writer who writes an essay with sources - to say the writer that uses sources is a bad writer because he can’t write off the top of his/her head is arbitrary
Are you kidding me that you dont know.
Frazetta often used living models not just photos.
excuse me but i am not sure if you are addressing me or generally other commentators. but anyway if you are talking about the title (question)of the video it is just merely a catchy rhetorical question.
most artists know or at least suspected Frazetta did occasionally use references whether it is photos or models. it is not that big of a secret.
however, some people do not and still hold on to the idea that masters like him do not use references. others cannot even accept the idea and deny it completely. it is understandable because they love his art so much.
in the end, it doesn't matter if he did. what matters is the results. but that is just my humble opinion.
@@bekkouriarts1634 I was -answering a comment and something goes wrong.
@@Rak-Nay That's why you press Reply, rather than make a new comment.
the ignorance on display here is hillarious
Your point is pointless.
when he said," don't copy" he meant don't draw like another person. (There's literally a interview of him talking about this exact subject)
Every artist use photo references because of the structure of the body when you're drawing a unique pose especially if you want it to look realistic & believable. You don't have to use a photo reference you can use a live model but still a reference will be used.. you obviously don't know anything about art because before cameras existed people had models act out live scenes so they can get that believability in their paintings..
And when he said everything comes out of his imagination he meant the unique poses the backgrounds the fighting with tigers.. the world that he created was totally his.
did you see the whole video? did you really listen to what I said? from your comment, I guess not.
you are misinterpreting everything. look at the entire video again and read my other comment defending Frazetta to see that what you just rambled about is what I genuinely said over and over again. but maybe i am asking too much....
hell, i knew it will come to this. this is what i meant when i said in the video that it is a sensitive and controversial subject.
just relax man, don't rush and attack people while you ignore all the facts and informations.
@@bekkouriarts1634 apparently none of your audience agrees with you but I see you commented on every comment which means you have a fragile ego..
@@jimhust8321 well we know your art sucks in fact give me your Instagram so I can prove my point.. even if you use a lock model that's still a reference
But let's see some real art give me your Instagram
@@totalandroid1366 there's proof he used photo references of himself for numerous covers..
Be honest for one time in your life
Do your people have a reputation of telling the truth?
🤔🤔🤔🤔
If you believe that he didn't use any references your dumb and I bet you your work is trash as well.
Send me your Instagram
He is a Titan among men, way ahead of his time.
When Caravaggio moved to Rome (1597), the established artists there claimed he wasn't an artist because he used models. This use of models was a northern thing, but Rome was still under the influence of Michelangelo, who maintained that an artist drew/painted/sculpted only out of his imagination. To use models was considered to be cheating. We have the same nonsensical attitude towards the use of reference photos today.
Don't misunderstand me: the last thing an artist wants is that his/her painting looks like a photo-the artist creates a work of art out of the imagination and uses all the reference material needed to achieve that goal. A photo is two-dimensional; so the Realist artist must use all her/his knowledge of the form, and how to create the illusion of it, to achieve a convincing painting.
imagine if Caravaggio lived today and with all that we know about his life, using live models, the arrogance, the violence and the murder...
i wonder what some would say knowing that they consider Frazetta a fraud because he used reference.
@@jimhust8321 Photorealism is the most vacuous form of contemporary Realism; it is totally detail oriented and dead boring. It takes very little talent to copy a photo-it just takes patience and a projector. Mind you, if you like it, buy it (how many do you own?). I always ask myself which would I prefer to have: £5000 or such-&-such a painting. When it comes to Photorealism, I have always opted to keep the cash.
"Greco-Roman" is so spelled, by the way.
The great artists of the last 100 years used photographs: Norman Rockwell, Drew Struzan, Bob Peak, Al Parker, Bernie Fuchs, Austin Briggs...
yes, they used models as well. there are many resources on the net showing them drawing from models and taking photographs. they produced great art using references, still, many people cannot accept this fact and revel in the idea that great art comes solely from imagination.
@@bekkouriarts1634 That's a lesson I took from Neal Adams.If you don't use photographs, references, etc... You don't learn anything. You can't gather new information if you draw only from imagination and keep making the sames mistakes over and over again.
@@bekkouriarts1634 I'd say that's more of a beginner mindset. I remember when I started drawing for the first month or two I felt I needed to know how to pull this out of my head or I'm less of an artist... which doesn't make sense when you get into art more. My teachers keep telling us: reference reference reference. Live models are best, your own photos second best.
@@milosradmilac8911 always use references dont ever listen to anyone who says you shouldn't. They're liars who pretend to be artists. Reference is your best friend.
Counterpoint: Bernie Wrightson and Frank Frazetta. Frank would look at a photo once in a blue moon, but he didn't rely on it.
thanks for making this commentary clip. I have no doubt he would have used references but guided by his imagination and composition. What I am delighted to see when you made the comparison, he actually made finished painting of the first version of the idea, and went on to make another version which was more anatomically refined. That would take him time and patience if something didn't work, he would just paint another version. That's great to see.
he certainly was a perfectionist and him coming back and using references to make his painting better doesn't take in any away his talent as an artist and a draftsman. he surely worked from imagination and he only used references when he had to.
@@bekkouriarts1634 totally agree! the revision he made, ie. not fixing the first painting but redo another one shows he is a tenacious and great artist.
Frank never used references. He was blind, never saw anything from this world. His art comes solely from his imagination. And he is the inventor if swords and rocks. A legend!
100% factual. Art historian and anthropologist here. He was, for a fact, blind and indeed, invented swords.
He didn't need to. He was an excellent draftsman and student of the human body. There is a lot of his sketch work available which proves this conclusively. Now, Frazetta imitator Boris Vallejo did, but either way, there's no "shame" in doing so. I am an illustrator and have used photo reference also, but draw the human body pretty well out of my head.
if you watched closely to the end you'll see that i already said/demonstrated that in the video.
to Jim Hust . at this point, your comments are getting ridiculous and showing your true colors.
you are a rude, pretentious, and toxic fellow. insulting me and attacking other commentators won't change a thing. it might comfort your gigantic ego and delusional superiority but now everybody sees you for what you are.
From now on i wouldn't deign respond to you. so have at it make yourself happy. i couldn't care less...in fact, it makes me smile because you just cant stand it do you?
11:40 I'm not sure what he's illustrating on the back. Ribs perhaps, going for a lean mean look? Odd to have such well muscled shoulders with such a lack of defined Latissimus dorsi though.
yeah it is ribs. i guess it is part of his stylistic approach, exagerating some anatomical element , but it looks good though, visually interesting.
Fun fact: The title screen painting was adapted for a late 80s Commodore Amiga game by the name of Turrican. The artist taking liberties in portraying a dystopia of robots at war.
Love the video, I hope to find more like this kind. You've got a subscriber.
thank you. more are coming
Of course he did. We all do? Nothing new under the sun.
@@jimhust8321 well honestly we have to go back to hieroglyphics if we truly are looking for Art without reference.
@@jimhust8321 No I understand you completely. I mean I still use an overhead projector old school...mainly to upsize or downsize...but still my drawing....Frank, yeah he was cheating the game big time...He would use a hallway and light to capture his subjects...I always enjoyed his stuff thats for sure...one of my faves along with Ernie Barnes, David Finch, Jim Lee, Ernest Watson....I copy them all to a degree...but I do change it 25% to make it mine! LOL
Does it matter...Van Gogh painted landscapes, how is this different from tye human body. This is a pointless argument. Are you an artist or just a critic?
Does anyone know the name of the piece at 3:06, the chariot with roman overtures? Also, where would I purchase it?
Thank you.
it is simply called ROMAN CHARIOT. if you are talking about buying the actual painting, i have no idea but you should check the Heritage Auction website.
maybe it is still in the Frazetta museum or maybe a collector already bought it.
@@bekkouriarts1634 Thank you, so much. I goggled Roman Chariot and pages and pages came up. Thank you, once again.
@@philipaiello3890 you're welcome
Search Frazetta prints.
@@klaustrumputin-trudeau4142 Thank you.