Видео

Short answer: yes, of course he did. I think what Frazetta was trying to say in the quote you used is that photos are actually references to prevent artistic mistakes, not source material to be traced over and reprinted. Go ahead, try to draw a gun or a car just from memory, and you'll probably mess it up pretty badly. For the human figure, photo reference helps to get things like musculature, limbs, and proportions drawn correctly. Why would an artist deny using photo reference? Because to many people, it seems like cheating. I thought that myself for a long time. But it's only cheating if you copy or trace the reference material instead of using it AS a reference.

In the late 60's, I got to go to a NYC gallery to see a display of Frazetta originals. Some of the paintings were for sale at $600. I didn't have, as a college student, $60.

every famous artists has used reference work. this is a nothing sandwich

Who gives a toss about where his inspiration came from, he painted the pictures. I have all the Conan paperback novels from the Seventies. I used to pay for them in advance before they were released because of an estate settlement thing… The covers would have sold the books.

Frazetta's paintings explode with dynamism, power and mystery. A sense of looking into another fantastic, alien and exciting universe. Boris Vallejo tried to copy his style and failed miserably (in an artistic sense) with static, boring, uninspired compositions. Frazetta changed fantasy art forever. Kids bought the Conan books for the cover art, the stories by Robert E. Howard were almost an afterthought. Whether he did or didn't use reference is irrelevant.

There is no human with that kind of memory who could remember stuff without decades of working from references. But of course, guys who can figure drawing of humans only and mostly naked without complex gear or environments.

Wouldn’t he be an idiot not to?

He is a Titan among men, way ahead of his time.

Absolutely fascinating - what a thorough exposition. Thank you.

who cares.He's still the boss.And no, not every artist use photo reference.

People just have to make mountains out of mole hills...

I can point out where he got some of his references from . He got some of his reference from lady Butler's horses.

Yes, he used references. No, he wasn't a slave to references. Meaning, he didn't just copy them. He used his knowledge of anatomy, prospective, and lighting. professional artists use references. Its an amateur mistake not to.

you people crack me up!!!! who the f@@@ cares if he did or did not use a reference? what a bunch of sanctimonias self deluded idiots. Jealous much !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol peaple are very naive "" reference"" its just a justificative thas the art paint watching a referênce. Litgh table, camara obscura, glass canvas, they basically many of the times where paint over the refence... Yes they traced and nothing worng with that tha are no rules. Art its not a competition off skill. Do everything you need to get de art you want cheate, Steel, copy.

He said just copying the reference wasn’t art, not that you can’t use references. I think he meant just copying it exactly the same as the photo. You can tell a lot of the faces were based on his own and apparently he’d use his wife as a reference sometimes too. He had to use reference for the movie posters of course, since he had to put the actors in the illustrations.

Hey i did this and gave away my art lol that was me and I didn’t know about him so when i was told i stop drawing lol his the better man

Yep

To use photos correctly you need to still know how to draw and interpret shadows /form. An inexperienced artist who tries this will end up with a flat 2d drawing/ painting. I have seen artists that use a photo too much and they end up with distortions and bad proportions especially when you are talking about fore shorting and such. You need to know what to keep and what to correct.

Controversial take: what does it matter if an artist, professional or not, uses referenced of any kind or for any reason?

The Conan piece was a reference of his face

Photo lenses are not human eye lens ,I think the eye is about 8 Millimeters ,so live models as references MIGHT BE (Might be in caps due to my own uncertainty) ,more accurate. Anyway I was surprised to discover one day that Gauguin used photographs ,Vermeer had a glass plate with a grid on it to paint his portraits ,Canaletto used the Camera obscura ,a darkened room with a window covered to keep the light out, the window cover had a small hole in it ,that was focused on his canvas ,he probably used a lense of some sort ,even earlier artists used cast shadows ,the shadows were used to help block in a picture. It is not the how ,but the result . There is a quality and a method signature that makes the work unique to a certain artist. Frazetta was a great artist.

C'mon....of course he used references and there's nothing wrong with that. All artists even the great masters use references, models etc... No disrespect to Mr Frazetta....but he used references just like anyone else.

I thought it was very obvious he used himself as reference alot. He even talked about this.

Norman Rockwell....Michangelo...Vallejo etc. All used models or photo reference. We can't know what everything in life looks like from memory. A person that has no talent can't reproduce a photo..........

Naturalistic accurate figurework is impossible without photo or real life reference and always has been. The forms are too complex to conjure up. Artists like to hide this simply to make themselves appear more talented. Just like landscape artists need a landscape before them, commercial illustrators relied heavily on photo reference and models for people. You even had comic strip artists from the early days like Milton Caniff having models pose for plenty of shots in the panels, and those were still quite cartoony. Frazetta just had a massive ego and there are people who like to perpetuate myths about him, including the family who control his 'brand' now. The guy was just a commercial illustrator, not some genius, and even if he had been a genius, he'd need reference.

He could draw from photos daily, it will seeps into your memory, once you draw something it's in your mind, you can then reproduce from memory ...technically... no reference

Good analysis. The golden spiral can’t be stretched to become a rectangle as you’ve fitted it in the painting at at 12:16. The golden ratio is 1.62 and that spiral doesn’t correspond to the golden ratio if stretched.

The answer: He only needed photo reference around 10 percent of the time. However once he used a photo for a certain pose he didn't need it anymore. As his memory is pretty good. I found this out from Frank Frazetta interviews, his friends and family. I noticed people think because he used it a few times it means he did it all the time. I think that's just a small amount of jealousy coloring everyone's opinions. Frazetta said he could actually see his figures posing, Like a projection. He's known for having a very strong visual imagination. It's possible he had hyper phantasia. It's not a myth that some artists don't need reference. Bernie Wrightson is another example. On a news interview he said he can see an image from his mind like it was an opaque projector. I think all the naysayers just need to admit some people have better memory than they do.

kim jung gi! " hold my beer"

Who cares?!!

The GOAT ! ❤

We can create art from references The problem is that jealous people talk a lot of sh1+ and you might eventually start to flinch

I think, Frank was referring using photo references for his compositions. Not using references for study.

.....soooooo why was he a camera collector !?!?!??

Someone with no inherent artistic talent can look at photos all day long, and nothing will happen. There is no shame in using references when needed to enhance your ability. Use a reference for certain elements and try to ween yourself off of it, if you can. But this is another tool in the toolbelt of a creative person, no different than a paint brush. The work happens in your minds eye, then filters to your hand, and the tool in your hand, reference or no reference.

Every artists I've always admired used black and white photos for referencing. Boris Vallejo does. But it doesn't really matter. I look at the finished product.

What size is the original The barbarian aka Conan painting?

Frazetta said, "copying" a photo, not, "using as reference". There is a big difference in copying a photo/model, and interpreting it. Interpreting is where the "Art", happens.

Crom laughs at your so called weaknesses. This film is perfect to those who know what's best in life 🗡️

Of course he did. Everyone does except for a very very few exceptions. I have a book on Pin Ups here at home together with a book called 'The Sensuous Frazetta' (dealing with women in his art). One his drawings is identical to one of the Pin Up photos. If you draw certain poses a million times they get stuck in your brain but the human body can take on so many different angles in so many different setting that it's impossible to get all the muscles and shading right all of the time without help. Artists throughout the ages have used many tools to help them achieve results quicker and better: light boxes/camera obscura, photos, live models, other people's art, tracers,... A real artist always stands out because there's more to it than just 'getting the proportions right'.

Jun Gi, Kase2 among other artists did it all off the dome. Pure visual memory. So, yes it's possible for superior men to make great work without referencing photos. Although it's no artcrime to use reference at all. Tracing, theft and AI are all big no no's though.

the better question is; why are you on his dick in the first place?

Does it matter...Van Gogh painted landscapes, how is this different from tye human body. This is a pointless argument. Are you an artist or just a critic?

Interesting take, some details I didn't pick on completely - the Religious Aspects for one One thing I love about this movie is how much they Show, rather than Tell, give much rewatch value as I notice things I missed in prior viewings, as I just pointed about above, which leaves much for the audience imagination to put the pieces together. One example I'll give is of Thulsa Doom. The movie never answers the question of just what he is. Is he human? A snake? A - of Kull & Conan Lore - Serpent-Man? A true Demigod? 1,000 Years Old? All that can be said for sure, in my opinion, is that he's really got a way with words, knows how to sway people over, and, is quite the Dirty Coward, given how little he enters the fray. Not surprised you needed two videos, when you consider how much is packed into its 2.5 hours.

You know I wanna learn drawing. I don't mind starting simple and being patient is there any book you could recommend for a beginner?

When he did Conan(R E Howard) he did.

There’s a great example of Frank using photos in Spurlocks book Fantastic Paintings. One of the major disappointments I got from the new Taschen book is that it covered nothing of his photography. I guarantee you there’s a treasure of unreleased photos. When I took a course with Vincent Desiderio, he stated he always drew from his imagination. He said create your drawings from imagination and then find reference to finish the drawing or painting. That’s what I do.

A really awesome study into a very important illustrator. I enjoyed your analysis. I have a Cornwell original charcoal drawing that I marvel over and draw inspiration from that I’m lucky to have. I’m going to use this study as a future reference when starting an illustration. Subscribed an I’m looking forward to future videos.

I was at his museum a few days ago and his son Frank Jr confirmed that he absolutely did use photo references.