Your technique for painting is very good, but is it really that interesting to directly copy a picture of someone elses work. You have the grid setup and everything...
I am a bit of a painter myself, and I myself did a Zelda painting a couple years ago, but I made a point to change the look and content of the subject to make it my own.
Don't get me wrong, the actual painting is very well done, even dead on with the original, but where is the fun and creativity in making a direct copy?
Mister-Sparkle
There's not much creativity, you are very right. But there is a ton of fun involved. However, in terms of what my girlfriend wants, I think she would more prefer something that looks more like the character she knows and loves than a creation representing this character in my own style, no matter how close it is. Because no matter how close I get, it will never actually be Link. Copying Link exactly from his original (as well as latest) creation is as close as I can get, and what I thought she'd want more. If I wanted to make her something original, I wouldn't have drawn Link at all. No matter what I do, it will always be copying if I draw Link, right? This does display something of my amateur painting skills, however its point is to represent Link on a canvas that she knows her boyfriend painted for her, whether he directly copied it or simply mentally copied it. But trust me, I was very, very torn as to that exact line of questioning.I do, however, make my own original art, not copied. I am, in fact, making an album cover, 100% original, for a band from NorCal. I do a lot of copying to attempt to learn what I can from other artists. I also, like many others, appropriate a lot of other artists' work into my own. I'm sure you've done the same thing, as you've created a Legend of Zelda painting before.
But here's a question for you - isn't a drawing of Link representational (not in the Biblical sense of the word) art nonetheless, "original" or directly copied?
Log in to comment