good background

[fatih]

http://rapidshare.de/files/20169936/...s120.rar.html* high resulation photo

[Tony_photoplus]

I don't know, maybe its me, but I prefer to use my own creations or photos. Then I think on the other hand I don't have the creativity to create these wonderful backgrounds, unless I get a lucky photo.. But, if I have created some work and have used other pictures of art work done by someone else it ceases to be my work. If you see what I mean. Maybe this is a good debate?

So, thinking ALOUD, does using a plugin in PS become your creation or someone elses?

Tony_photoplus

[arb]

Tony_photoplus,

What do you mean with your last question precisely?
Using a plugin in PS on a image/picture of somebody else?
Using a plugin in PS on a image/picture of yourself?
Using a plugin in PS to create an image?
And how about presets (from other people e.g. SuperBladePro) of plugins?

Ton

[Tony_photoplus]

It is a subjective question really as you have pointed out there are many thoughts to it that I had not thought of. I should go back to school, think before you type!!

Tony_photoplus

[tamlin]

Tony: This is a very interesting and controversial subject. Artists like Marcel Duchamp believed that the mere choosing of an object by an artist was enough to make it "art" (although even he felt that he needed to add some sort of input even if it was limited to drawing a moustache on a print of the Mona Lisa). A little further on from that, Proceduralists would argue that the action of creating an artwork was what was important, not the finished product. I once read a thought-provoking theory (that I cannot find a link to now) that put forward the proposition that all art created or edited with Photoshop should actually be credited to the Adobe programmers, since without the program, the artwork would not exist. I don't hold with that theory myself, but it does make you think. If I take a piece of someone else's work (a stock photograph, for example) and alter it extensively in Photoshop, at what point does it cease to become a product of the original artist and become "mine"? Or can I ever actually claim to have "created" it? What if I make a collage of one of my photos and a stock photo?

[arb]

And even the Adobe programmers were "influenced" by other programmers and so on. It's cross-fertilization constantly all the time.

Suppose I see a nice technique on a creation of a face on Biorust. I copy the technique of making that creation on to another face. Is it my work or the intellectual property of another?

[stiney51]

I personally think you can argue this point from either direction. If I take a photo and bring it into photoshop and hit play on a action. It's not something I would post as my work (most likely). If I take that same new image and add text, brushes, a border it starts to become my design using pieces of other people's work. There's certainly a grey area in there though...

[notjustgraphics]

Where does the argument end?

Certainly if you take a photograph of a pleasing scene... perhaps a field or meadow... you are not responsible for the appearance of that scene... If you photograph a building in an interesting way, is the original artwork that of the builder? perhaps the architect who drafted the blue prints? was he inspired by an old-word master?

True creation is rarely encountered if ever... even Monet and his sunflowers are suspect... for he did not create the vase, nor paint the vase, nor sculpt the flowers, nor construct the table upon which they sit... yet who would dare to say that his masterpieces are not art?

An artists takes an old thing, adds a part of him/herself and creates a new thing.

hmmm.. that's all.

Mike.

[tamlin]

I seem to remember that the person who posted that original theory (the one about art created in Photoshop being credited to the Adobe programmers) was systematically shot down in flames with pretty much the same arguments as have been put forward here, although I think, to be fair, she was only acting as devil's advocate. You could apply the same arguments outside the world of digital art - who really "created" the Mona Lisa? Leonardo, or the unknown craftsmen who made his brushes and mixed his paints and wove the canvas? I think the truth of the matter lies not so much in the provenance of the tools used, but how they are used and the final product of that use.

PS: Mike: I think it was Van Gogh who painted the sunflowers. Monet's flowers were water lilies.

[notjustgraphics]

Originally Posted by tamlin

PS: Mike: I think it was Van Gogh who painted the sunflowers. Monet's flowers were water lilies.

Tamlin... you are right! of course! Can we chalk that one up to the proverbial Brain F$@!?

Mike.

[tamlin]

Maybe you need a cup of Tim Horton's to clear your head...

[notjustgraphics]

Soon you will know how right you are!

Mike.

[stiney51]

Speaking of Tim Hortons, I've noticed a huge increase in the amount of TV advertising I see for Tim Hortons (in the US). Ironically, they are billing it almost as a "The Canadian People Can't Be Wrong" kind of thing, which given the general US citizen's laxidasical feeling of superiority is kind of an interesting way to try and promote the brand...

[arb]

I can't remember anymore what the subject was.

Ton

[tamlin]

Originally Posted by arb

I can't remember anymore what the subject was.

Er...art? No, wait...coffee? Um...maybe we should move this thread to General Discussions...