tl;dr WARNING

Homoshiroi Made a "TRACING IS NOT ART" stamp a few days ago and has been mildly wanked over. Unsurprisingly, the reaction and positions of the comments mostly reflect those of what I observed over in youtube. In other words (and sorry if I offend), they are quite intolerant, self-asserting, and to some degree, authoritative. The negative atmosphere oozed with defensive possessiveness. Oh, and most agree with the stamp-maker, but that's hardly an interesting or fascinating point to make.

In any case, wank about people tracing over others' art and not giving credit, tracing/modified work as/not as a form of art, its merit or the lack of, examples of such "disgusting" behavior, etc, etc ensues.

Now except for Messa and the above-mentioned artist, both of whom I watch and do not know personally, I don't even know these deviants, so I cannot say whether they are professionals or not. The general atmosphere amounts to be "zOMG, my art. Not yours," which I understand on principle. Whether they see it as an art form or not matters little to me, but I was most unimpressed with their lack of understanding in beginning artists or people who have more trouble translating 3-D visuals/visions into 2-D lines and shapes on some other media. I do not believe that stealing art is right, nor do I believe in not giving credit, seeking permission, or respecting the artists' wish where it is due, but I question whether the root of their discontent arises from profit (in monetary or esteem, etc terms) or from the act itself.

I agreed with Messa quite completely on her opinions on tracing. Let's hear a bit of voice of reason here, here, and here, with the dA policy on tracing here.

¤ Some hatin' because hatin' is infectious.
My brain, however, is experiencing the most cognitive dissonance on this one particular lady, who sounded either elitist or very obstinate; she firmly believed that life drawings and learning from "real artbooks" is the only way to go.

Aside from her stubborn adherence, her point is valid to a certain degree. So I thought to myself, "self, this lady probably has a reason for her fervency and unbending will. Go check out her point from her art, since, hey, she teaches other people to draw, and seems to do art professionally too! What an interesting character! I wonder what her art is like!" (with the most non-sarcastic, sincere frame of mind, I assure you.)

What I found was highly unimpressive. I admit I'm a bit of a whore when it comes to reasonable anatomical proportions (i.e., no weirdly sideways features, etc) and not really a fan of superduperpointy!chin style (like this). I drive myself mad with attempts to make the anatomy as natural as possible. So I completely understand her emphasis on knowing the proper basics.

But if I hadn't read her commentary first, I would never have even fathomed the idea of she preaching about anatomical correctness and learning from "real" art books on anatomy basics, or that she teaches drawing and works professionally as an artist.

Oh, and I wouldn't think she's just full of it because she is only 22, and can't bother to spell "homoshiroi" correctly, either:

"I put homoshoiri's stamp in my journal and commented on it, saying that artbooks are the best learning tool and self-study, then all hell breaks loose with these two kids who, like I said, already proved my point. The problem is, they won't let it go after homoshoiri and even myself said that arguing is moot and shouldn't be done on there, they seem very determined to make themselves out to be some sort of tracing saviors or whatnot...kids these days..."

Arrogance that comes with age is often unavoidable in many. Arrogance of the above is just ridiculous. She is not qualified to throw that "I TEECHES PEEPALS" and "I IS PROFESSHIONOL" crap around.

Oh, and I guess she has no problem with riding on the coattails of Nyu's Art Meme...LoL, even the size of the meme is the same, not to mention the style...

Oh, I will stop because I'm just hatin' on her now. And yeah, I'm not brave, insolent, nor intolerant enough to post this section on dA.

¤ Opinions regaring issues discussed.
On the matter of tracing as a learning tool: I believe that, no, tracing should not be the primary way of learning how to draw. However, tracing has its merits in letting a starting amateur to get a feel of "how things should be"—not every one has an innate talent to transcribe one object's relative position, proportion, etc to begin with. It eases him/her (I'll stick with "her" for the time being) into getting a sense of lines. Of course, moving onto attempting to copy a subject would be wise. Tracing helps me to more quickly understand how some features and perspective works, i.e. why does drawing that other eye that way makes it more natural, etc.) It also a quick way to experience and try out a new style, while merely "eying it" makes me stick to my style more often than not.

A lot of concern is centered around how some people traces and makes derivations of other artwork without crediting, asking for consent, using the same outline, etc (some goes as far as saying the same poses, though the example was either a really bad tracing or copying the poses by eye). Yes, I agree with the fact that a piece is only completely Her Art when she drew it from scratch. But, if she modified it from someone else's, consent from the original artist must be given; the derivative artist must respect the original artist's wishes to credit or not publish. Not doing so would just be bad etiquette, stupidity, and rudeness. If said original artist did not respond to such request, that is the same as a "no" to me. In the case where the artist gives free reign of his work or that it is not possible to contact the original artist (i.e. reference from an anime screenshot), claiming that you used a reference would be preferred, if just to save the derivative artist from flames. Claiming the art as your own and not mentioning the reference part, most of the time, will just cause pain and grief. Especially if the original is heavily referenced.

Just because a piece was heavily referenced doesn't necessarily mean it's bad in my book; it just means that the derivative artist is either 1. not comfortable with her "free forms," 2. completely worships the original artist, 3. is unable to create from scratch (and some people don't prefer to, because of various reasons), 4. wants to imitate a style, or 5. learning. A great example is sprite-making. A lot of times people just alter/recolor/cut-and-paste/mix-and-match the original sprite(s) to make new ones. Whether that is plagiarism another issue.

There's also the issue of copying a style. Some think its wrong because "an artist's gotta develop his own," but this is really a matter of preference. Is a fanart better if it has the artist's own style or is an imitation of the original artist? Different people, at different ages, will give you different answers with different pieces of art.

Perhaps my perspective is just different than the others because I'm quite a recluse amateur. A recluse (by comparison) because I don't think it's good enough to flaunt, because I am constantly improving, because I desire criticism but fear it at the same time, because I can't get my arse together to finish something. I am still at the stage of "hey, I'm no good, so why should I be so possessive with these scribbles?" It's probably much, much different than a popular, skilled artist who constantly has issues regarding art theft (the kind without modification and/or for profit) more commonly.

I think I'm getting really tired—sentences are sporting more and more comma abuses and run-ons.