I've Seen Many Shops In My Time

There is a very interesting argument making the rounds in the digital art community.

What seems to have happened is that Linda Bergkvist, the Internet's darling/sacred cow of photorealistic digital fantasy art, has been discovered painting over other people's photographs.

Here's Bergkvist's work:


And here's the book cover she painted over:


This is a fascinating topic to me because the artist in question is widely hyped as one of the finest digital painters on the Internet for her amazing photorealistic fantasy art.

She has stated that she does not do photomanipulation or work from photographs; her work comes right out of the ether, just like magic. Anyone could do it if they would just practice like she does. That's why people are so impressed--her natural ability and sense of realism is just too good to be true. Well, you know what they say about that...

Her work is certainly not my cup of tea (I am not a fan of cut-and-paste twee fairy wings or her choppy photoshopped something-is-off-here-but-I-can't-tell-what sense of composition), but she rakes in the cash doing commissions and is published in many artbooks. She is, in a word, established.

I did admire the way she painted such realistic feet-- assuming that she painted the feet at all as she claims and thus deserves technical praise.

Whether she splices photos into the work is not even a question anymore. If you adjust the brightness on her most inconsistent pieces, the wonkier parts will look like a brightened painting, but the "Oh, wow, that looks SO REAL!" parts fairly pop out with funny compression artifacts and look, basically, like a chunk of brightened photograph.

Here's Linda's work, again:


And here's what comes out when you mess with the levels a bit to bring out what's hiding in the black areas:


Look at the scribbly, chibified cat-monster with the crippled forepaw, murky shapeless fluff of tail and so-real-it-looks-alive head. Bad form and shortcuts can lead to irregular results and ultimate drama once your fans find out that the skill you're known for isn't even something you actually did.

Photomanipulation is a great skill. I've seen people create some truly incredible scenes with it. So why not brag about your awesome photoshopping skillz if that's your joy? The great masters worked from sources all the frickin' time, and they were, like, famous. And why trace other people's art at all, ever? Shouldn't being an artist and dealing with rippers of one's own be enough to inspire honesty? Or am I just naive? Yeah, probably just naive.

I feel bad for all those admiring would-be artists who follow her fraudulent tutorials to the letter and then feel discouraged because their results don't look like a photograph.

I guess it's just natural talent; you're either born with a liquefy brush in one hand, or you're not.



In conclusion, I give you...



LUKA'S HANDY ARTISTS' GUIDE TO NOT BEING A DOODOO-HEAD:

1. Credit thy sources.
2. Don't be uncool to thy fans.
3. Draw or paint from life.
4. Thou shalt not be ashamed of needing references.
5. REFERENCE =/= LIGHTBOXING. Gnarrrr.
6. Credit thy motherfucking sources.