Tin

[highbrow]

great piece, if not mistaken it was on my list as well.

[dellboyy]

Yeah, as usual even better in the flesh... i was fully expecting the email to come back saying it had already sold when i sent my list!

[highbrow]

I wonder why it is framed different then mine, mine is floated

[dellboyy]

Were the originals not all framed differently? I seem to remember one having a light frame for example!

[highbrow]

May have been now have to check

[ally]

i chose to frame it twice (frame nestled into another frame) since that was painted on wood. the edges were not sanded and hence were a bit rough on the edges.
i hope you like it though!

i almost always float things on black linen. i like to see the raw edge, but it didnt work for this one....

[highbrow]

you made perfect decisions

[dellboyy]

Yep i love the frame, spot on for me... thanks again, you've got good taste it seems!

[sleepboy]

For upcoming G1988 show.

[rizza79]

where were those pictures found?

[iswydt]

I'm just a lurker around here, but after seeing that lfox's post was deleted, I'm feeling more compelled to post these.

Why can't there be any discussion on this? People didn't seem to have any problem with similar posts in Chris Berens' artchival.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=artists&action=display&thread=715&page=4 thread...

Please enlighten me.

[sleepboy]

I see nothing wrong with artists using photo references.

What I do find interesting is that users who have posted nothing before come on this forum and post photo refs for so many of Tin's paintings. Do you work with Tin or have access to his studio?

Also, checking the logs, Ifox's post was deleted by Ifox himself so it was not done by any of the moderators. I'm gonna look a little more into this...

[oldfartatplay]

I was just going to say "Maybe ifox deleted his own post."

Enlighten us iswydt, why would that compel you to post?

Also, this was discussed a few pages back after ifox made a similar post.

[highbrow]

If I may not mistaken this has been brought prior and Tin was even nice enough to explain he has used photos fro reference in the past. I am more compelled to question why people care when we live in a society of recyled goods, TV Shows, Movies, Print ads and yes even our beloved art, most have some sort of recycled so why would someone want to point that out, i almost see the posting as a half hearted attack towards the artist, especially since it has been brought up previous and discussed. I understand my reply does not in anyway reflect that of this great board or TIN either. I always have to agree with Sleep and be even more curious as to someone with one post bringing this up, could it be a case of a jealous artist as TIN seems to have jumped on the scene in a very fast way?

[steveinca]

Is this supposed to be an attack on tin's creativity and skills as a painter? Since when is using a photo reference wrong? I've always been and will continue to be a fan of tin's work. Something tells me the people posting these pics up are envious and jealous.

[lfox]

I did delete my own post.

This is where he gets his reference.
community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/

These are all famous fashion photographers. There was an issue with Viner being copied by a photographer for a spread in a magazine and he was given later credit. I don't see how this is any different.

[commandax]

I think this would be an interesting discussion, if we could all get over being indignant that someone took the time to find these photographs and dared to post them. Whoever did it probably did it anonymously because they knew there was such love for Tin here that there would be a great deal of anger at anyone who dared to raise the subject. And ifox has a legitimate point (wordlessly), in that the most recent photo he/she posted was for the latest item on Tin's blog... so that Tin's explanation that the direct photo referencing only occurred in "past work" no longer applies.

There was some legitimate discourse on referencing old master paintings on the Berens thread, and there was some discussion of photo referencing in the David Choe thread as well, so I don't see why that needs to be out of bounds here. We're here to discuss art, after all! Everyone has a different perspective on this sort of thing... for some, photo referencing is perfectly legitimate, and for others, it may detract from the magic they perceived in Tin's work. Let's try to be adult about this, and not shoot the messenger.

[svenman]

nothing should be out of bounds on here, i don't know of a single instance on this board where a moderator has deleted a post (unless it was spam) by someone for having an opinion. pretty good bunch of members we have here...

opinion being the operative word though...

i didn't see the deleted post by ifox, but presume that it just contained images and no words to qualify the message.
if this was just an image only cheapshot at tin's work, that pretty much goes against the ethos of 99% of the people who frequent this board.
if you want to make a point, state your case. smear campaigns aren't welcome, but healthy discussion is. we would like to hear what compels you to post. please don't hide behind internet anonimity (gosh, i think i spelled that right ). state your case, rather than just a picture... you won't ever be knocked for having an opinion here.

i'm interested to see how this rides.

i for one am not a collector of tin's work, but i know that a lot of you here are. i think he has great talent, and has climbed a pretty steep hill in a very short time. congrats to tin, i say.
he has done this by impressing galleries and colletors alike with the pieces of work that he has created.

personally, i think that most of the work that we see draws inspiration from somewhere. some artists use live subjects as models. some produce still life works from inamimate objects.
tin has used photo references for some of his pieces in a style that is instantly identifyable as his - i don't have a problem with that - it's not a direct reproduction afterall...

it may be that some people do have hidden agendas one way or the other in the case of tin, but lets try and keep the discussion moving on this interesting subject.

i've created a new thread in the general discussion area here artchival.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generaldiscussion&thread=1980
to discuss photo referencing in general terms. your opinions on specific artists are welcome, but lets keep this here thread for the discussion of tin's work. if you feel the need to discuss tin's photo references within this thread that is fine also.

cheers.

[iswydt]

I apologize for assuming that ifox's post was deleted by a mod. That was presumptuous of me.

Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with my previous post.

I'm not an avid follower of fashion editorials, but after coming across Tin's paintings, I instantly recognized that I had seen the images before. That must mean something...

I also agree with what commandax said regarding Tin saying he had not used direct photo reference recently.

I'm not bashing Tin's work; he's obviously talented. I would just prefer it if he relied less heavily on published photography.

[pikopiko]

As an artist you have to start somewhere. I don't necessarily think that what Tin is doing is uncommon. You may be surprised to find allot of Artist using Fashion photography, mainstream media and even advertising as a reference. Some Artist may not have the luxury of hiring a model or their friends are too camera shy to pose them. But if you copy a image too closely you may run into trouble. I found it is helpful to work from memory. Study a pose or image and try to recreate it with out directly referencing the photo / image. That way the artwork becomes detached from the source and the Artists' creative style and concept becomes more prevalent.

And Tin, you latest work is smoking hot

[entropy]

Apr 20, 2009 9:33:12 GMT -8 commandax said:

I think this would be an interesting discussion, if we could all get over being indignant that someone took the time to find these photographs and dared to post them. Whoever did it probably did it anonymously because they knew there was such love for Tin here that there would be a great deal of anger at anyone who dared to raise the subject. And ifox has a legitimate point (wordlessly), in that the most recent photo he/she posted was for the latest item on Tin's blog... so that Tin's explanation that the direct photo referencing only occurred in "past work" no longer applies.

There was some legitimate discourse on referencing old master paintings on the Berens thread, and there was some discussion of photo referencing in the David Choe thread as well, so I don't see why that needs to be out of bounds here. We're here to discuss art, after all! Everyone has a different perspective on this sort of thing... for some, photo referencing is perfectly legitimate, and for others, it may detract from the magic they perceived in Tin's work. Let's try to be adult about this, and not shoot the messenger.

I agree 100%. I am so relieved to see commandax write this. Furthermore, I am relieved that the initial post wasn't deleted by a moderator. A censored board would pretty much render the forum useless, except for the galleries/artists that rely on it for marketing and promotion.

I mostly lurk on this forum... and have been reading it for over a year now. The best posts are those that get into a lively and passionate discussion, whether it's pro or con or whatever. Bad posts are the ones that collectively hype and are fawning over the emperor's newest set of clothes, etc. It's okay to appreciate, but sometimes it's a bit much. But the worst posts are the ones that try to chase away newcomers or those that are mildly critical or refuse to jump on a bandwagon.

And it can be argued that even worse than that are the people who have something to say, and want to say something, but don't post at all!! Like me! ha ha

So I saw lfox's post last night and was fascinated. But I really wanted to know who the photographer was. I loved that first photo so much, that I wondered if I should begin collecting photographs... it could be less expensive than what I spend on paintings. My art expenditure-to-income ratio is way too high as it is, as such, however, I would indeed want to know how a $3000 painting might closely resemble its source material.

I don't collect Tin artwork, but if I did... I think the source photographs being so close to the final product might bother me. I guess I might deem it not entirely original, therefore I would probably try to buy a copy of the source photos from the photographer so that I could frame it, display it alongside the painting. Then I would feel a sense of symmetry or balance has been established, a sense of closure, or whatever, then I would shrug and move on. But that's just me. Actual collectors of Tin's work have already spoken and aren't the least bit bothered by the revelations in the posts above.

Regarding the reaction to iswydt's and lfox's illuminating posts: I am a bit disturbed how the genre doesn't accept criticism well. I hope it's not because we have nothing substantive to say about the real world. That would mean my entire collection is shallow and meaningless. I know it's not, at least not entirely, but what is there to hide? I recently read on Kirsten Anderson's blog where she called a few critics "lazy" for not fully understanding pop surrealism and its history as much as she does. And I just kind of chuckled when one of the editors of Hi Fructose went on some rant in the latest issue (Volume 11) about some unnamed critic... They seem to be rationalizing that the presence of art criticism will hold this genre back and prevent it from growing or breaking down barriers or whatever. I mean, I think even Travis Louis said it a few months ago, that what the low brow/pop surrealist movement needs is a good critic. And I think he meant more than just one. A "good" critic doesn't necessarily mean someone you will agree with all the time. But someone that will articulate growth (or the lack thereof) apparent in an artist's series of paintings from one show to the next, what the artist may have been trying to say (if anything), or whether the artist was perhaps just driven by mere whimsy (or worse). I've always loved reading criticism even if I disagree with it... Most of the time it's refreshing to see things from a perspective other than your own (with exceptions, of course). Unfortunately, there are very few art critics out there willing to glance this way... none devoted to this genre. I personally believe this genre will never become mainstream or gain the stature it deserves till we we can get a few thoughtful articles and critiques published on a regular basis by unbiased (or minimally biased) professionals (i.e. please, no gallery owners or curators or someone with a vested monetary interest in hyping the art).

I'm just saying we should be receptive to criticism. Just make your counter-argument if you don't agree. The lfox post did not make any allegations of plagiarism or gross "appropriation" (euphemism of the year).

Anyway, in the absence of any in-depth show reviews or art criticism (and you won't find them in Hi Fructose or Juxtapoz), we turn to message boards and some blogs for a mere hint of stimulating discourse. We should not deter people from posting illuminating information or dissenting opinions. A sterilized, neutered message forum makes for a boring message forum.

[roqlarue]

@ Entropy- "They seem to be rationalizing that the presence of art criticism will hold this genre back and prevent it from growing or breaking down barriers or whatever."
Er- I'm not sure how you got that from reading my post...I said:
"In the art movement I'm a part of, there are lots of art writers but a big lack of critics covering it. This has been good in some ways because I think in a way it has allowed the scene to incubate pretty safely and allowed for the imagination to roam free without too much fear of getting critically hammered. (I should add in the early days any good Lowbrow artist worth his salt could care less about what an art critic thought)."

And then I said:

"On the other hand, and I've said this before, a lot of garbage gets through that gets labeled as "Pop Surrealism" when it isn't, or is just a poor derivative of it. This means critics who deign to cast a glance at it can get sloppy and just think this whole scene is about "bloodied little girls and headless teddy bears"*, ignoring the (and forgive me for using this word) important artists who are making some pretty spectacular work. It's lazy and annoying, but at the same time I also see why that belief has come about."

So what I was intending to convey was that we could use some intelligent art criticism, but that too often critics can be blinded by outdated academic propriety instead of really examining the work without preconceived bias. Should they understand the history of what they are talking about? Uh, yeah, that is their job. They shouldn't talk about it if they don't know anything about it. And unfortunately many don't care to know more, and so don't talk about it. I was questioning why that was. Doug Harvey and Carlo McCormick seem to be able to look at this scene subjectively, but I don't see too many others.

[commandax]

I'm going to try to refocus this conversation a bit:

1. Is it acceptable to borrow elements from someone else's art as a reference, without their permission, and without acknowledging that your work is an hommage or pastiche? If a new artist came on the forum who had borrowed composition, lighting, costume, props, hairstyles, posture and attitude from Jonathan Viner or Lori Earley's work, how would we feel about that?

2. Is fashion photography art? Cecil Beaton, Irving Penn and Richard Avedon were all fashion photographers whose work now resides in permanent museum collections. Are contemporary fashion photographers like Mario Testino and Steven Meisel artists? Is anyone who creates a beautiful image through means of their skill and imagination making art?

3. If "everybody does it," does that make it right?

[travislouie]

As far as the previous post by Entrophy is concerned, it's about perception.
As artists, we are not only judged by our own standard in our work, . . . but also by the company we keep. If we are lumped together with artists that really are very derivative and just plain bad, . . . I think what Kirsten was saying is that it doesn't help anyone if galleries are legitimizing artists who aren't up to spec. It gives art critics of consequence, more reasons not to look at the "scene" or take any of its active players seriously.

My responce to Commandax post
1.No
2. Yes
3. No

[commandax]

I think most artists would admit that if they're not sure how to draw something, and they don't have that object immediately available, they go find a picture. However, there is a big difference between referencing a set of eyes, or a particular way of pursing the lips, or a drapery effect, or an unfamiliar object, and lifting all of those elements from a single source. So it's not so much about the source – be it fashion photography or porn – as about the extent to which one relies upon it. Everyone gets their inspiration from somewhere... but hewing too close to the original will only get you in trouble.

As far as referencing classic paintings goes, it's a bit like using some Beethoven in a rock song, or a phrase from Shakespeare in movie dialogue. Everyone with a little education knows where the reference comes from – so it is more an allusion than a theft – and no one is hurt, as Beethoven and Shakespeare are long dead. Chris Berens was utterly thrilled when I mentioned the classic source paintings he referenced – he loved the fact that I had taken the time to think about the work deeply enough to understand where his inspiration came from. In many ways, much of his work is about historical paintings.

All of these ethical considerations aside, there's the issue of copyright infringement. That's something big guys like Shepard Fairey can afford to fight out in court. Few up-and-coming pop surrealist artists have his deep pockets.