PDA

View Full Version : Tim Bradstreet: Artist or Hack?


TAP_LEGION
07-08-2006, 09:33 PM
Opinions ?

L Jamal
07-08-2006, 09:34 PM
Neither, he's a troll.

Calloway
07-08-2006, 09:59 PM
oh ok, i'll start the arguing...hack

ChuckBordell
07-08-2006, 10:43 PM
What kind of a question is that? A hack because he takes photos before drawing? Or are you just asking how many people here like his work and how many don't? :confused:

Chuck
www.highanxietystudios.com

The-Spirit
07-08-2006, 10:46 PM
Looks like he just traces photos, he does have talent for design tho.

TAP_LEGION
07-08-2006, 10:46 PM
I'm asking because ALL HE DOES is trace from photos...nothing more. I've never seen the guy do anything freehand.

The-Spirit
07-08-2006, 10:52 PM
I dunno he does very nice tracings, inkers do the same.

Scott Story
07-08-2006, 11:15 PM
Yikes--have we learned nothing from the Greg Land wars?

One thing I have learned: Most comic fans have some level of disdain for artists who trace pictures. The tracing might be a swipe, taking it from another penciler. It might be from a photo, either one the artist took himself, or one he swiped from another source (like Sports illustrated, Maxim, etc.). It might be from Poser.

So, no matter what, the average comic fan feels cheated it the art wasn't drawn freehand.

Here's another thing I've learned: The average comic fan can't tell if the picture was traced, or if it's freehand. If its traced, the usual fan thinks the artist is really detail orientated, or really good. Then, when he finds out how it was done, he feels cheated.

Thus, comic fans want their comics to be untraced, but they can't tell the difference.

L Jamal
07-08-2006, 11:33 PM
The biggest difference between LAnd and Bradstreet is Bradstreet takes his own pictures. This means he puts together the composition. He controls the lighting. Everything is his.

oddsea
07-08-2006, 11:50 PM
As an illustrator I would say hack.

If someone took a picture and painted/inked over it with photoshoppery that's hack...I don't see how inking over a lightboxed photo is any different. If you take photos, even really really good ones that would look great inked over, you're a photographer. The only thing that you are illustrating is your lack of drawing skill.

As a personal opinion, it's kinda disheartening finding out that particular artists use tracing methods to do work but on a peer level they are just limiting the work they can do.

Calloway
07-08-2006, 11:58 PM
It;s just plain tracing. Hope a photo on a light board and put a board over it and take an ink pen and trace. Not exactly a hard skill. Land may copy a picture but you can still see land in the piece, bradstreet is whatever he traces. How he became big is because people liked his tracing without knowing any different at the time. I remember when he was asked about his technique, it pissed alot of people off. If you like tracings fine, if you like swipes fine, if you like creativity and originality fine. Only the consumer counts so this is really pointless isn't it?

Jason Arthur
07-09-2006, 12:05 AM
So you think just any schmuck with a camera and light box can do this:

http://www.punisher-art.com/artists/bradstreet/sketches/bradstreet_mil_visions_inks.jpg

??

-- J

James Taylor
07-09-2006, 12:10 AM
Plenty of guys use photos for reference and even trace them – there’s more than you think and more than likely some of the names would surprise you.

Bradstreet does have some artistic chops, from work I’ve seen in the past. He’s just become formulaic and too dependent on photo reference. But that said he does take his own photos, like I said many artist do that. Though I do have a problem with artists who use other peoples photographs as reference and sell them as their own work, profiting off someone else’s idea/creation – but Tim doesn’t do that.

He does have a very good sense of design but once again he keeps reusing his same formula. He’s just lost his desire to breakout of it and who can blame him if they keep paying for it. Hell Jim Lee uses the same formula over and over in his work. Tim uses photographs as a tool, yeah it’s cheating a bit but he uses it to create the results that his clients want – that the job of the illustrator, give the client what they want.

So no he’s not a hack and is an artist just not an overly creative artist.

Now all that said I don’t like his work and artistically he’s very boring for me.

Justice41
07-09-2006, 12:34 AM
Ahem.... take note of the name on the artwork. You guys sometimes have zip perspective.
http://www.architectural-illustrations.com/images/bradstreet.jpg

joshm
07-09-2006, 12:38 AM
Personally, I don't trace anything but my own work; that's very rare too. Whether I think it is a hack or not to trace photos is questionable. I know in design it is all about the finished product. Know one cares how you got it to look the way you did. They just care whether it looks good or not. Architects do a lot of tracing or using images to show people in the structures that they are designing. We don't think they are hacks. They are trying to show what their building will look like with people in it and some don't draw people all that well, so they trace.

However, we're talking about comic artists. I don't know much of either of these guys work, but I don't think it's hacking if they are using some artistic interpretation. We all use references, but we draw them ourselves to make the art ours. Well, these guys make their art theirs a different way—so what if they do. I don't care and I think if they can get paid to do the work then good for them. I don’t do it because I’m an artist looking to create art that is mine—at least as much as I can make it mine. I use references and since I’ve been reading comics for 18 years I’ve picked up a few things from other artist, whether inadvertently or on purpose. In the end an artist just has to make a choice and do the work the way he want to do it.

Josh

Dexxell
07-09-2006, 01:17 AM
Comic art isn't strictly showing pretty pictures, but more importantly, trying to tell a story with each piece or sequential. I don't care either way, as long as the story is being told cleverly.

The Predator
07-09-2006, 02:01 AM
I think a lot of todays artists use that teqnique. I can´t tell that, for example, Mike Deodato does it cause I don´t know. But I suspect it.
I really like what he has done on Spider-man it feels like watching a movie in his realistic pictures so I wanted to read some more of him and bought a book with Wonder Woman. In this book his art looked very bad. I couldn´t recognize his style at all. Bad anathomy stiff poses. I almost wanted my money back.
There is a BIG difference between the art and if he traces some photos today on his Spider-man comics I don´t care cause I like reading it.
I like Greg Land as well but I agree sometimes I must say that it doesn´t feel like comics, it feels to flat.
If I´m wrong about Mike Deodato I´m very sorry, but it was such a difference between the books that I couldn´t believe it.
I still love his art on Spider-man.
All the best
The Predator

TAP_LEGION
07-09-2006, 03:50 AM
I'm not going to really get into the whole photo thing...its been done to death on this board.

I think my point with this is can one call themsleves a comicbook illustrator/ artist and be this one dimensional ? He only does this one (tracing)style , and while he has gotten better at tracing his photos with the help of the PC , thats all he is.
I'd love to see the quality of any of his freehand stuff , or god forbid , an actual painting if they exist.

Those Alien covers look like they belong in the 25 cent , now defunct company indy bin , especially that #4...horrible.

Great Scott
07-09-2006, 04:06 AM
Sure his ability as a draftsman could be called into question, but should it be so long as the guy gets plenty of work, steals images from nobody, and is quite popular for the stuff he does? Certainly his ability is quite limited if this is the only way he can create images, but so long as it works for him who cares? His relying on such a crutch only hurts himself.

Great Scott
07-09-2006, 04:08 AM
Those Alien covers look like they belong in the 25 cent , now defunct company indy bin , especially that #4...horrible.
Actually it's the third cover I find particularly cringe-worthy.

Calloway
07-09-2006, 06:25 AM
Ahem.... take note of the name on the artwork. You guys sometimes have zip perspective.
http://www.architectural-illustrations.com/images/bradstreet.jpg
These just make any argument for tim, worse.

Calloway
07-09-2006, 06:26 AM
So you think just any schmuck with a camera and light box can do this:

http://www.punisher-art.com/artists/bradstreet/sketches/bradstreet_mil_visions_inks.jpg

??

-- J

Actually, my mom, who knows nothing of comic art, did stuff like this in the early eighties.

As for compositing, Tim tends to do the same straight foward against the wall design. To me that got boring quick.

katana
07-09-2006, 08:31 AM
..uhm..Hack or not...he makes money...

illojik
07-09-2006, 09:44 AM
like it or not, Bradstreet not only gets work and makes money, but makes a living doing this. I've got no problem with the guys work, however he does it. The biggest thing about being a commercial artist (comic, editorial, cartoonist, whatever.....) is getting enough work and making enough money to live on and do what you enjoy every day. Have I used photos I've taken myself in my work, sure I have from time to time. However if you're talking about his penciling skills versus someone who has a more refined, and freehand approach it gets to be a sticky conversation. If ALL you can do is take good photos, or if ALL you can do is trace from photos, or if ALL you can do is ink or color or whatever, then you really ARE dependant. But if you can take the photo, or take FOUR photos, use them as reference in a new composition and get all the elements from each to blend together, add in detail of your own, establish a NEW light source in the piece, and then successfully color that piece so that all the colors make sense, and that piece of work conveys the emotion, atmosphere and energy that you intended.....you're a heck of an artist and will have no problem finding work.

are matte painters any less of an artist for taking a plate or frame from a picture or film and COMPLETLY relighting, recoloring, and changing it to blend into an imaginary computer generated surrounding? In my book, no. They're JUST as good if not better than a lot of artists because they have to see EVERYTHING, not just the composition. could you take a photo of a suburban house in the summer time in the middle of the day, and then paint over and recolor/relight it until it looked 80 years older, was in the middle of winter, snowing, and was decrepit and abandoned looking, lit only by a full moon at night? There's a hell of a lot of artistic ability in someone who can do JUST that as opposed to just drawing it in pencil.

Now if all you can do is pencil, and you do it very well freehand....more power to you. While I can respect that as an artist, I don't think that a darn good penciler is worth as much to me as an artist who can direct (that's essentially what photography is at its most basic level), pencil, ink/color/paint, and deliver a complete piece. Editors have a hard time finding reliable people for individual elements of comics, but if you can find someone who can deliver, CONSISTENTLY, is quality, easy to work with, and has a knack for not missing deadlines......you snatch them up. ALL editors in the illustration field are that way, it's not just comics. There are shortcuts that ALL artists take in order to make their deadlines. There are things that we ALL do, corners that we ALL cut, in order to get the work done. Illustration is a volume business. Even if you CAN do everything freehand, you're not going to be successful in a day and age where deadlines are getting shorter and more demanding, and you're competing against people that may not have your expertise at freehand drawing, but nonetheless are better ARTISTS than you are.

k, that's my $1 worth of thoughts on it. if you read all that, you must be as crazy as I am :D

grendel
07-09-2006, 10:02 AM
I love what bradstreet does. ..THe punisher covers are great iamges and really set a fantastic tone for the book. THe point is the Image and the story behind it not HOW the artist does it. And why just pick on bradstreet many of the top artists use photo work in there stuff..its just a new age of getting a point where realism and comics meet.

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 10:28 AM
I think there has been a confusion of topics.
Land is/was lambasted not because he traces, but because he composites and traces other people photos. In doing so he infringes on the copyrights of others
Tim Bradstreet traces his own photos and thus infringes on no copyright.

As work-for-hire artist your job is to produce work that you can legally sign over copyrights to. Bradstreet can legally re-assign the copyright without question. Land does, but the legally of it can be called into question.

Whether Bradstreet is a hack or not depends on your definition of a hack. I first remember seeing his work for White Wolf in the mid 90s and he's continued to evolve from there. I prefer his earlier Vampire work. His current stuff is too formulaic, especially the Punisher covers.

Land was a much better artist before he went to CrossGen.

D.J. Coffman
07-09-2006, 11:54 AM
Taking photos, making props, dressing his models, posing them.. it's an artform in itself. If you think photography and lighting isn't an artform in itself, well, I bet there are TONS of photographer forums that would love to rip you a new asss.

So he takes photos HE TOOK, HE COMPOSED as his own photo reference, then redraws them. I don't think he always uses a lightboard either-- from what I've seen he figures out where the light hits and draws in the "fill" areas. It takes an artfull eye to do it.

So yes.. he's an artist.

He may however lack the skillset of people who can do this work without photos. They know how light would look if it hit something, or they can fake it so well that no one would be the wiser.

All art is an illusion.

D.J. Coffman
07-09-2006, 11:58 AM
Here's an interesting page I found showing some lighting photography:

http://www.bigfanboy.com/pages/interviews/coverboys/coverboys.html

Lovecraft13
07-09-2006, 12:09 PM
Alex Ross is a hack, too! Burn 'em all!

Justice41
07-09-2006, 12:10 PM
I've yet to see but a handful of artists here who could even draw as well as Bradstreet did on those old covers, yet you guys have the nerve to call him a hack. Nice way to support the trade you want to be in. I suppose Alex Ross is on the hit list next eh?
You guys are Pathetic and Bitter little people.

Buckyrig
07-09-2006, 01:10 PM
..uhm..Hack or not...he makes money...

:laugh: "Worthington's Law" :laugh:

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 01:17 PM
I suppose Alex Ross is on the hit list next eh?
Alex Ross won't make the hit list because he uses photos to create PAINTINGS. That hits a little too close to home. Although Ross takes most of his own photos, but is known for using other photos for likenesses. Ross is also known to draw without the use of reference, so that make threads liek this moot when it comes to Ross. Most of these thread pop up because someone usually the initial poster) is trying to seek justification for a method he uses or an artist he likes.

Ross is one of those artists that I like in small doses (like covers) as his sequentials tend to look very stiff. I still like his Marvels work.

Calloway
07-09-2006, 02:37 PM
Like I said, it all comes down to what the consumer wants. That's why I can't see the point of the question. I find it funny though, if I were to do this (or any artist on the board), I couldn't pay to get work because I'd be another bradstreet clone. Even though the lighting is all the same (one single source above) and the comps are the same (straight foward and against a wall 95 percent of the time) the moment I trace a photo in ink I'd be a bradstreet clone.

crozonia
07-09-2006, 03:33 PM
Like I said, it all comes down to what the consumer wants. That's why I can't see the point of the question. I find it funny though, if I were to do this (or any artist on the board), I couldn't pay to get work because I'd be another bradstreet clone. Even though the lighting is all the same (one single source above) and the comps are the same (straight foward and against a wall 95 percent of the time) the moment I trace a photo in ink I'd be a bradstreet clone.

That sounds like a bunch of excuses, LilGreenMan.
What's funny is that you think you would be a Bradstreet clone. That's implying that you have similar skills with him and draw like him. Since you said it's so easy to do what he does, I would like to see you try. If you fail, atleast you've broadened your horizon.

I don't need to see Tap Legion try, because I know he's got skills, and could probably pull it off. So he can call Bradstreet a hack. Fair enough. Others, talk is CHEAP. Bring it on!

Calloway
07-09-2006, 03:39 PM
You don't need skills to trace and I only said me as an example, i also said anyone else on this board. I don't know where you see an exscuse. He's making a product people buy. From a commercial standpoint, great! From an artistic standpoint, he traces. Bottomline.

In fact, it's even beyond that. I think there is a way in photoshop to manipulate a photo to look traced in inks.

Calloway
07-09-2006, 03:42 PM
now I must admit, I like ralph stegman approach on sketches:

http://www.flyingfistranch.com/albums/Beaus-Manly-Sketch-Book/BradstreetSketch.sized.jpg

Jason Powell
07-09-2006, 03:55 PM
I believe that if you call Bradstreet a hack then you are calling are artists hacks cause we have all used photo references or copied someone else's work at one time or another.

But then, who cares, like has been expressed in one way or another, comic art is more than just the picture. It is the design, layout, and heart that goes in it. If this wasn't true then how is an artist like Sam Keith still in the business? This is Tim's style. You may not like it but I don't like Sam's, I am not calling him a hack. I respect his art for being and if he finds a market for it then good for him.

It is like some people don't like abstract art, some people do not like surrealism, and some don't like sculptor (ect...). But these are all art and their are people love them, so respect that you bunch of hacks :rolleyes: :laugh: :whistlin: .

-SIN-
GATOR

midknight
07-09-2006, 04:12 PM
I believe that if you call Bradstreet a hack then you are calling are artists hacks cause we have all used photo references or copied someone else's work at one time or another.


it's one thing when you're learning and it's another when you're getting payed big bucks for traced artwork

Jason Powell
07-09-2006, 05:36 PM
it's one thing when you're learning and it's another when you're getting payed big bucks for traced artwork

Not true cause actually you are doing something worse. You are tracing or copying someone else's work where as he is tracing is own for a specific look (that people like). It is no different then Alex Ross who uses real people for reference in his paintings. Heck if you don't like Alex Ross how about Da Vinci (who did the same thing). True enough there are some people who can do it without reference but most artists do need reference and their talent is no less impressive.

Also, Tim does not trace them exactly. He adds texture that you just can not get from simply tracing. That is talent.

-SIN-
GATOR

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 07:00 PM
I believe that if you call Bradstreet a hack then you are calling are artists hacks cause we have all used photo references or copied someone else's work at one time or another.

Photoreference is different from tracing. Using photoreference for an image is akin to using reference for a report. The reference is used to support and improve the report just as photoreference should be used to support and improve the drawing. Using someone else's reference in place of your report is called plagarism, and so is tracing someone else's photos.

Bradstreet for the most part relies on tracing to create his illustrations. That is not photoreference. That's tracing but at least they are his photos.

Aaron Hübrich
07-09-2006, 07:14 PM
I'd hire that "hack" in a second.

studio_hades
07-09-2006, 07:19 PM
I used to like his inks over Truman, back in the day, but I have no respect for him anymore. Its a cheap shortcut. But on the otherhand, there are tons of "artists" that get paid very well for pasting layers of stock photography together, why should he be any different? Why hate him more than them?
Greg Land, of course, is even worse. Hell, at least Liefield actually DRAWS
his crap, so i guess that's something. I'll take John Buscema or Gene Colan anyday over today's artists.

Evan
Studio-hades
http://www.studio-hades.com


and yes, i am angry and bitter

Jason Powell
07-09-2006, 07:27 PM
Photoreference is different from tracing. Using photoreference for an image is akin to using reference for a report. The reference is used to support and improve the report just as photoreference should be used to support and improve the drawing. Using someone else's reference in place of your report is called plagarism, and so is tracing someone else's photos.

Bradstreet for the most part relies on tracing to create his illustrations. That is not photoreference. That's tracing but at least they are his photos.

First of all, he is tracing his work so it is not plagarism. Second, do you consider inkers hacks? All they are doing is tracing (in most cases) someone else's work and (maybe) enhancing the illustrations. What about colorists, are they hacks, all they are doing is enhancing someone else's art with color. Now, I am sure you saying, no, inking is an art and coloring is an art. Well, if that is true, what is the difference? I can see what you are saying. Tim does not do comic art like most people do (or like you seem to like) but it is still an art, just a different style. That is what I getting at. If you call him a hack for doing what he does then where does it end? Some people can draw without photo reference, what if they start calling those who do hacks? They could certainly justify their POV in the same way you and others do here. But they are wrong. Art is defined in so many ways and so many forms, why do you want to limit comics. If we are ever going to get away from the "KIDDY BOOK" image the plague American comics then we have to stop tearing down our own creators and acting like kids. You can dislike someones work (that is fine) but being called a hack is such a horrible thing.

-SIN-
GATOR

joshm
07-09-2006, 07:31 PM
I think there is one point that is mission here. This art is a style that "some" people like--not all. I don't know if Jae Lee uses references or just traces, but he can draw and he can tell a story. Plus, I like his work better than the tracers out there making a buck off of that kind of art. In the end, I'll take a book that is drawn from someone that uses references, but uses his/her ability to draw for the most part. Once and awhile is fine, but when you get a guy that is tracing every page it gets really annoying to look at. So, they will be limited to what style they can produce good work in and others like Jae Lee, which I'm not sure traces at all, will be able to produce art that is his own for years to come. For those who do trace and make money, great; but I think they are selling themselves short. Styles come and go, but true creativity will last longer than a tracer.

Josh

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 07:47 PM
First of all, he is tracing his work so it is not plagarism.

Go back and read. No where did I say or imply thatBradstreet is plagarizing. I said he traces. I was the first to mention that he takes his own pictures and that is what sets him apart for the others that have been discussed.

Scott Story
07-09-2006, 07:49 PM
I think people's reactions to Bradstreet tells more about the people who react than it does about Bradstreet himself. So, he's an illustrator--so what? Artists dislike illustrators, it seems, and illustrators dislike artists. There's a difference in their approaches, but why not just acknowledge that and move on.

I've seen a bunch of statements here that basically contrast tracing to creativity, talent, etc., and call tracing a shortcut and cheating. That's even when he took his own photos! It's his composition and property, but he's "cheating"!

Is it cheating when you work out a drawing on a different piece of paper, and then transfer it to the paper you do the finished drawing on by tracing?

Am I to understand that a picture is only good when it was drawn wholesale from the imagination, without reference, straight to it's final piece of paper?

If you think about all this, it's pointless argument.

(But fun to argue, I guess, which is why people (like me) keep posting.)

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 07:52 PM
If we are ever going to get away from the "KIDDY BOOK" image the plague American comics then we have to stop tearing down our own creators and acting like kids.
Exactly what does the American perception of comics have to do with discussions about creators? Americans consider animation to be in the realm of kiddy fare as well. Is that because animators are "tearing down" other animators?

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 07:54 PM
I think people's reactions to Bradstreet tells more about the people who react than it does about Bradstreet himself.
With that I agree, I think there are a lot of agendas being pushed around in this thread and they have little to do with Bradstreet.

Jason Powell
07-09-2006, 07:55 PM
I think people's reactions to Bradstreet tells more about the people who react than it does about Bradstreet himself. So, he's an illustrator--so what? Artists dislike illustrators, it seems, and illustrators dislike artists. There's a difference in their approaches, but why not just acknowledge that and move on.

I've seen a bunch of statements here that basically contrast tracing to creativity, talent, etc., and call tracing a shortcut and cheating. That's even when he took his own photos! It's his composition and property, but he's "cheating"!

Is it cheating when you work out a drawing on a different piece of paper, and then transfer it to the paper you do the finished drawing on by tracing?

Am I to understand that a picture is only good when it was drawn wholesale from the imagination, without reference, straight to it's final piece of paper?

If you think about all this, it's pointless argument.

(But fun to argue, I guess, which is why people (like me) keep posting.)

Jim Lee, which I am guess of you like, has admitted he draws his thumbnail first, blows those up (if he has to), traces them onto the actual board, and then does the finished pieces on top of them. Is that cheating? Cause I know a lot of creators who do that.

-SIN-
GATOR

kdmelrose
07-09-2006, 08:02 PM
Exactly what does the American perception of comics have to do with discussions about creators? Americans consider animation to be in the realm of kiddy fare as well. Is that because animators are "tearing down" other animators?

Yeah, that came out of left field. Good or bad, every industry/medium has creators who criticize, or "tear down," other creators. Read some animation blogs, or follow the ins and outs of the publishing industry; they're vicious but it doesn't lead the hoi polloi to dub them kiddy fare.

Scott Story
07-09-2006, 08:03 PM
Jim Lee, which I am guess of you like, has admitted he draws his thumbnail first, blows those up (if he has to), traces them onto the actual board, and then does the finished pieces on top of them. Is that cheating? Cause I know a lot of creators who do that.

One of my points, exactly. What makes "tracing" so evil when it's a regular tool.

Jim Lee (and countless others) trace over their rough drawings and finish them. What is so evil about tracing a photograph. The photograph itself is art, so why does it become evil in the translation by tracing? Especially when the artist took the photos himself?

Personally, I think it's more work to set up a photoshoot than to just draw something outright. Takes more time, costs more. So, how's it cheating?

That's why I never trace, never copy other peoples art, etc. I'm just too lazy. It's just easier to make up the artwork new than take it from another source.

Jason Powell
07-09-2006, 08:08 PM
Exactly what does the American perception of comics have to do with discussions about creators? Americans consider animation to be in the realm of kiddy fare as well. Is that because animators are "tearing down" other animators?

Simple, because while that is not a"cure all" it doesn't help when we act like children about it. Like I said, calling people hacks who trace photos (like Tim does) is just like someone who draws without reference calling someone who does use reference a hack which is just like someone who likes fine art calling comics "KIDDY BOOKS/ART".

Think of it like racism. Some people think one race is better than the other instead of accepting all races as equal. Except here we have some people saying one style of art is better than another rather than accepting them as all art. That may not be the best example but you get my point. You are discriminating against his style of art cause you don't like it. I am not saying you have to like it but calling him a hack cause you don't like his style is wrong.

Oh, and you did bring up the point about plagiarism. While you might have made that fact before you contradicted in the statement above mine since we are talk about Bradstreet.

-SIN-
GATOR

kdmelrose
07-09-2006, 08:16 PM
Yes, arguing about art style/techniques is just like racism ...

:blink:

L Jamal
07-09-2006, 08:34 PM
Simple, because while that is not a"cure all" it doesn't help when we act like children about it.
Maybe we just need better publicists. When rappers feud in public it increases their record sales. The American public's opinion of comics was firmly cemented in the America psyche well before any of us ever existed. The work that the industry has published in the last 20 years is chipping away at that image, but I fear that the industry has neglected the kiddie comics in an attempt to chase that perception away.

Think of it like racism.
I don't think it's anything like racism. Racism stems from 100s of years of unhuman treatment. Comparing the art/illustration dynamic to racism says to me that you have no idea about the real impact of racism.

Oh, and you did bring up the point about plagiarism. While you might have made that fact before you contradicted in the statement above mine since we are talk about Bradstreet.
I'm fully aware that I mentioned plagarism, but I never accused Bradstreet of plagarism. I clearly stated that he traced, but he traces his own work. You can't steal from yourself.

Scott Story
07-09-2006, 08:47 PM
Racism... Wow. I've got nothing on that one. That just seems like a huge overstatement.

Jay Carvajal
07-09-2006, 08:57 PM
I'd hire that "hack" in a second.

I'll second that--if I could afford him that is--which I doubt.

As long as a person isn't ripping off someone else's drawing, copyrighted photo, etc. I could care less how a person conveys the image in his mind onto the paper on his art board.

I know one thing--Tim could do every cover of my projects from here on out if he'd like and I'd be as happy as a kid in a candy store--of course I could only pay him with praise :cool:

fogi
07-09-2006, 08:58 PM
I dont think copying or tracing is cheating...every artist has to research everytime you cant figure it out how really looks like. And even you trace or copy it, there is always the innovation. Making yourart better even thu it is a copy. The important is, your trying to make your piece great not only for yourself but for others to,that they can appriciate your work. :)

Imboden
07-09-2006, 09:06 PM
http://www.imboden.org/stuff/stfu!!.jpg

carriertone
07-09-2006, 09:07 PM
Since he does take his own photos, with his own lighting and props, it's still art to me. He's basically rotoscoping his own stuff. So, if you think he's a hack, is Linklater a hack for rotoscoping A Scanner Darkly? Or Bakshi for Fire And Ice and other countless movies? I don't think Tim's a hack, just like I don't think Land is a hack, I just don't like Land's stuff. My personal opinion. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Tim's art begins with posing his models, and ends with tracing or drawing the scene. That takes talent. I'd love to see any one of you call Tim a hack to his face. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean he's a hack.

- C

filthysize
07-09-2006, 09:19 PM
I don't understand how "tracing' is supposed to an easy thing anyone can do...

TAP_LEGION
07-09-2006, 09:36 PM
Tracing is a piece of cake. A 6 yr old can do it.

I've traced my own pencils many times...even from blowing up doodles at Kinkos to create the proper composition...everyone does that from Adams to Sorayama. No biggy. The thing is that its an original doodle that I did myself. No swipes , no "cheating".

This guys entire career is based on a delusion that he can actually draw , which I've yet to see.

There's a mile wide gap in between what this guy can do freehand and what he has to rely on to make his covers....its night and day. I think if he could do stuff without the crutch of tracing a photo , we would see it on his site.

I've mentioned it before , it reminds me of a guy that couldnt draw worth a sh*t that did a comic for Image years ago in which all he did was trace panels from other comics and made up his own book. Bradstreet is a step above that best.

Who cares if he takes his own pics. Thats not the point. If you go to his website , even his "sketches" are traced photos. I've yet to see this guy do anything frrehand that isnt mediocre indy fodder.

Jason Powell
07-09-2006, 09:43 PM
I am not comparing to racism to art, I am comparing the mentality. If you read, that is what I said. Also there have been millions of years of people have discriminated against art also. In fact it arguable older. But again, I am not comparing racism to art, I am comparing the mentality. But they do intertwine cause our art has just as much to with our culture as our race. But that is not the argument. I am arguing the discrimination of one type of art to another.

-SIN-
GATOR

Justice41
07-09-2006, 09:57 PM
Was the matter Tap? Not getting any gigs? Why the bitter jealousy? You have an agenda, spill it. :p