On the muddied heels of my latest adventures on the topic of eyeballing, I feel the need to clarify a couple things.

Why Tara finds referencing ( a.k.a. "eyeballing") another's artwork to be 1) counterproductive, especially to achieving an artistic career and 2) rather unfair to the party being eyeballed. It doesn't matter if proper credit is given. It doesn't matter if no money is made. In the long run, it doesn't even matter if you asked and received permission to post your eyeballed work. I am looking at this from a long-term perspective, as a professional artist who learned quite a lot of this the hard way.

First off, then, counterproductive. Anyone....and I mean anyone....can eyeball someone else's artwork to a certain degree. It does NOT mean you are possessed of badass skillz of your own. It does NOT mean you have an awesome eye for perspective or shading or whatever else you referenced. It does NOT mean you are the leader of the pack of whatever group you are trying to impress. What it DOES mean is that you have a decent eye at copying someone else's work. You don't have to understand anatomy, perspective, or anything else to copy. All you have to do is observe how the person that DID have the skills used their ability. Real skill is achieved through long and patient practice learning your OWN rhythm, your own style, letting those things click inside your own head your own way. It is not a quick fix, and before a general audience it can be a largely thankless process. However, it pays off in the end when you find that you don't HAVE to reference anyone, because you have found your own voice and know how to use it. Then comes the REAL appreciation. And let me tell you, there is nothing more satisfying, even if it's only a piece of fanart.

Referencing as a counter against the sometimes thankless process of marching to the beat of your own drum? Referencing is a false positive. Especially among fanart circles, it can gain you an instant attention whore high. 100 gushes of OMGINCREDIBLE compared to a measly dozen if it is entirely your own work.

YES, all artists love getting comments, even when they do art to please themselves more than anyone else.

YES, sometimes it can get frustrating to have your work passed over for the mainstream.

HOWEVER, publishers do not want to see how good you are at making your art look like Todd McFarlane's. They want to see evidence that you know just how the hell to pretzel-bend a body in your own mind, and translate it to paper your own way. Disney does not want to see your best Lion King screen-cap-referenced art. They want to know that you understand the flow of the body, not the details of someone else's static image.

Publishers or fanboys and fangirls, who is going to pay your bills? Better not say fandom, because then you're getting into even less legitimate "borrowing".

And in the long run, you aren't the one getting the compliments anyway. The original artist is.

So what is the point? If all you are looking for is a fast fix of easy and hollow praise, then to be brutally honest maybe you need a different hobby and should leave art to the ones who are willing to work for it.

Referencing classic masters has been used as a tool to try teaching someone anatomy and whatnot, but that is a learning tool, not something that should be displayed in art galleries as though it was in any way your own where it counted. Photo referencing, model referencing, that is another matter altogether. That is not aping a piece of someone else's style. You are forced to practice your own methods, develop them, even if you're using onion paper over a Kodak. Many well-known painters use photo references. However, not a one of them copies off another's art and tries to say it was in any way theirs.

And even in that form of referencing you are required to credit in some cases.

Many art sites do not allow referenced work. I recall good old dA here even catching flak for allowing it. But even dA will remove it if it is too close to the original.

Which brings us to referencing as unfair to the original artist. Well, yes, it is, particularly if you copied an an artist you do not know and therefore cannot properly credit by just saying "oh I don't know who this was but I saw them on this site or Photobucket". For me personally, not crediting on the artwork itself, where it can be readily seen and understood because not everyone reads commentary, squicks as well. And I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

Look at it from our shoes. Some art can take days, weeks, months, with ability that took a much longer time to achieve. Eyeballer comes in, copies what they see, credits, yes, but then proceeds to reap praise on a work that was never their own. Kind of like your boss getting stroked by the district manager for all the grunt work you did, isn't it?

Among a lot of artist friends I know, and speaking from my own experience, eyeballing really does disappoint. It is considered a cheap cop out, no gauge at all of the eyeballer's real skill, or lack thereof. It seems a play for popularity you haven't earned by using someone that has. It has a shallow flavor that no excuse really washes away.

So there you have it, my position on the subject. It's something I'll debate on endlessly if need be, because I feel strongly that one's hard work should remain one's own.

And if I catch you using MY work without credit? It's the hickory stick to your ass. :B