The Pragmatic Artist: Utilization of stock art and photography in professional art
The graphic design and digital art world both tend to stigmatize the use of stock art in major avenues, which is understandable; many designers and artists utilize stock resources in such a poor fashion that it tends to be a blight on the community rather than a boon. Another issue is when artists utilize a stock resource in such a way that the end product is practically just the stock work, with no actual creative design elements from the so-called producer.
There are, however, legitimate artists making honest work with stock resources. I consider myself one of those artists, in fact.
I'm not ashamed that I use stock art and photography for some of my design work, especially at my day job. Being a graphic designer at a print-focused newspaper means cutting corners in EVERY department to produce the product. While I myself have served as photographer for the ad department on a number of occasions (including climbing up to our roof to shoot a passing boom truck owned by an advertiser), there isn't enough time in the day to do an illustration of a toothbrush hanging out with some toothpaste for a local dentist, or hunt down a family to pose in front of a new home for a real estate agency ad.
For artwork, however, it is a different story. There tends to be a greater stigma associated with artists who use stock photos for their work. As a photo manipulator, I frequently do designs utilizing a wide variety of photographs. Most of my photo manipulation work is composed of shots I have taken myself, but for an upcoming series I'm preparing for, I will have to make heavy use of stock/public domain photos in order to create the final product, because I personally can't find the necessarily materials or textures within any decent area, and the model featured in the pieces has been dead for some time.
Here is where it becomes complicated. How do we judge the merits of the artist or artwork when stock material is used? Can we assign a hard number of percentage in order to determine the creativity in the final product? What sort of manipulations would be enough to consider the work unique?
The answer isn't something easily derived, and I don't think we'll ever be able to truly find a suitable metric. Popular statements have been made through blank canvas as well as 100% original paintings. The same can be said, I'm sure, for those who utilize stock resources in the production.
Art is about the artist, their conception, and their motivation; not the amount of effort put into the final product. I've done pieces that have taken me minutes, and I've done pieces that have taken months. Regardless, the final product is what has spoken the most in the piece, and not the aspect of creation, or the artist behind it. Some of the best artists check their egos at the door and let the art speak. It is the final voice. If the artist wanted their efforts to be the motivation, then they should document the process or do live creation.
There are, however, legitimate artists making honest work with stock resources. I consider myself one of those artists, in fact.
I'm not ashamed that I use stock art and photography for some of my design work, especially at my day job. Being a graphic designer at a print-focused newspaper means cutting corners in EVERY department to produce the product. While I myself have served as photographer for the ad department on a number of occasions (including climbing up to our roof to shoot a passing boom truck owned by an advertiser), there isn't enough time in the day to do an illustration of a toothbrush hanging out with some toothpaste for a local dentist, or hunt down a family to pose in front of a new home for a real estate agency ad.
For artwork, however, it is a different story. There tends to be a greater stigma associated with artists who use stock photos for their work. As a photo manipulator, I frequently do designs utilizing a wide variety of photographs. Most of my photo manipulation work is composed of shots I have taken myself, but for an upcoming series I'm preparing for, I will have to make heavy use of stock/public domain photos in order to create the final product, because I personally can't find the necessarily materials or textures within any decent area, and the model featured in the pieces has been dead for some time.
Here is where it becomes complicated. How do we judge the merits of the artist or artwork when stock material is used? Can we assign a hard number of percentage in order to determine the creativity in the final product? What sort of manipulations would be enough to consider the work unique?
The answer isn't something easily derived, and I don't think we'll ever be able to truly find a suitable metric. Popular statements have been made through blank canvas as well as 100% original paintings. The same can be said, I'm sure, for those who utilize stock resources in the production.
Art is about the artist, their conception, and their motivation; not the amount of effort put into the final product. I've done pieces that have taken me minutes, and I've done pieces that have taken months. Regardless, the final product is what has spoken the most in the piece, and not the aspect of creation, or the artist behind it. Some of the best artists check their egos at the door and let the art speak. It is the final voice. If the artist wanted their efforts to be the motivation, then they should document the process or do live creation.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home