DID FRANK FRAZETTA USE PHOTO REFERENCE ? 

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.

An artist using photo references is no different than a writer using a dictionary. One can't write a novel just by copying a dictionary... one can't produce a successful artwork just by copying photographs. These are just tools to check our knowledge and fill in the gaps. This notion of "cheating" is absurd. Thank you for the video, it was very interesting.

I do not believe Frank Frazetta was being a hypocrite when he dissed reference photos. I believe he was meaning the use of photos of other people from magazines, movie posters, etc. to make an exact duplication. Frazetta often took photos of himself to see how muscle flowed to ensure he got things right. There is quite a difference between posing for a photo to keep an idea flowing and borrowing or outright stealing a pose from a published photo or drawing.

A reference photo is just another tool, a way to make sure your work is on the right track. More of a guidepost than a recreation. Besides, making a carbon copy of a still photo kills the dynamic elements and leaves the figure static. One thing Frazetta does better than most is using varied amounts of detail and polish throughout the illustration to direct the eye precisely where he wants it to go.

Of course he did. We ALL do in the illustration field, mainly due to deadlines. No shame in using photo references, to insure reality and detail. Again, WE ALL use whatever is necessary to meet the deadline.

It’s not controversial at all…..just about every artist who produces professional work for book covers etc, uses photo reference. What Frazetta meant was slavishly copying a photograph. I doubt that Frazetta ‘struggled’ with anatomy….usually for a published piece it’s a time saving device and to find the correct pose. As a professional artist myself I know what I’m talking about.

I can't believe that in 2022 we are still having this debate. Frazetta was a master of fantasy art for decades his art still resonates with the audience as much today as in the past. The debate around whether he used photo reference or not is pointless. This speaks more to contemporary paranoia and imposter syndrome than the ability of Frank or any other artist. Artist don't need permission to use whatever technology is available to them to make art, it does not diminish them as an artist in any way. Whether it was Filippo Brunelleschi with rules of perspective back in 1435 through to David Hockney using his iPad today. I concede it may be interesting to know how an image was made but it really doesn't matter and it certainly doesn't reflect badly on an artist or their art.

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..........

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.

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.

As an artist, I'm surprised that his use of reference photos was so taboo that he felt the need to deny it! Photo reference is a practical necessity for commercial artists! In fantasy and sci-fi illustration, one has to improvise by mixing and changing details, such as colors, costumes, props, and scenery. Fine artists paint hired or hire models for portraits and nudes, travel to locations for landscapes and seascapes, and use bouquets and bowls of fruit for still-lifes.

His quote about not copying photos sounded like he was saying he doesn't copy photos like a photocopier, leaving him using photos as reference to be true. It's like the difference between tracing and drawing from reference.

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

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.

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.

We know he and his wife both posed for model photos. We've seen some of the photos. Regardless of his methods, his art towers.

So what exactly is the problem, with using a reference while creating an artwork?

This is important for artist's to understand. I remember watching a documentary with him when I was first starting my art journey. Hearing him talking about not using reference is the OPPOSITE of what beginner artist's should hear, and it paints the idea to laymen that great artist don't use reference in their work. Great video!

I knew he used photo reference, but as you mentioned not as much as and to the extent of tracing like Julie Bell, and Vallejo. Frank was a real prodigy like Mozart etc.Hus sons said he was also kinda mean when it came to teaching them art, but let's face it reference or not he was The One.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

to Jim Hust . at this point, your comments are getting ridiculous and showing your true colors. you are a rude, pretentious, and toxic fellow. insulting me and attacking other commentators won't change a thing. it might comfort your gigantic ego and delusional superiority but now everybody sees you for what you are. From now on i wouldn't deign respond to you. so have at it make yourself happy. i couldn't care less...in fact, it makes me smile because you just cant stand it do you?

the whole thing is a problem made up by the clueless admirers and beginners. another thing is to fully trace a photo - which tbh is a very common thing on the tube-artist scene. to fully fledged copy a photography seems for many to be the epitomy of art

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.

This is a silly premise to start with. *_ALL artists who work in a realistic style use photo reference._* The notion that they do not is the foolish deceit of an amateur.

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

There are clearly people that can create from their imagination, its a technical skill you can develop like anything else. You need to study/practise from references and from your imagination, drawing from your imagination shows you what you know and what you don't know. Just look at Kim Jun Gi.

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.

kim jung gi! " hold my beer"

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.

I don't have any problem with artists using photo references, but it's not completely necessary to be accurate if you're looking for realism... take some of the italian and spanish baroque painters. Velazquez made his pictures without doing sketches on the canvas, for instance... usually used models for his portraits, but not always. I think that references are not needed when you're going to develop a theme that you know very well because you did it before many many times. Also anatomy is difficult, but perspective is maybe tougher, it's of great help using some kind of reference to struggle the minimum

to Mr. Jveenem and others. i m not gonna debate with you since you obviously didn't watch the entire video or listen carefully to what I said. your silly attacks are born of ignorance and misinterpretation. at least view the video and do some reading before spewing nonsense, and if you don't get it, you'll find in my other comment what was my true intent, at least read the answer to *Andsendme* comment, he, on the other hand, did get it and had something valuable and interesting to add to the discourse...

SInce Frazetta is not around to defend himself, I'm going to have to take his word for it. The only artist I know for 100 percent that doesn't use reference is Kim Jung Gi, that dudes brain acts as photo reference.

If Frazetta used photos I would love to see the women who posed for them.

Artists use references..

The photo reference debate comes out of the mid 1800's when the debate started as "if you can just photograph it why paint it? The painting is just inferior copy of reality." Illustrators weren't considered "real artists by the art critics back then and today many critics still consider illustration something other than "real art. That's probably where Frank's insecurity came from. This use or not use photos has little to no impact in the professional art world. Pros use whatever works.

I don’t quite understand the “problem” some people have with using photo reference. I’m an artist and I use them all the time, mostly my own photographs, for example of fabric and certain lighting conditions. We can’t always align our time to paint with perfect circumstances where all the needed subject material is at hand. And sometimes we have no access at all to these things. I think it’s extremely valuable to use photographs as the accuracy of our sight isn’t always 100%. I think it was Magritte who used projected images of his work in order to create large murals and many artists do the same thing with photos for painting portraits. The brushwork, the style…this is always unique, no matter how the reference arrives.

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.

There's a copy and there's reference. Just plucking a photo from Pinterest and doing the exact same thing is a copy, plain and simple. If you place it, and take photos yourself, with your own idea in mind, I'd say that's fair game.

When you provide photographic references that resemble the poses in Frazetta's paintings, your assertions are persuasive. But to contend without any photographic evidence that anatomic and lighting corrections between the sketches and the finished works are "obviously due to photo reference" is not convincing. Many artists are capable of improving the accuracy of their images without photo references, based simply on their knowledge and skill.

References to poses could have been from family, friends (including girlfriends), various magazines (including "nudie" and "fitness"), and movies or television shows. Learning how to draw classes or references often show or advise the student to refer to medical anatomical models/pictures. They also use the various mannequins for proportion. All student references that, once learned well, may never be referenced again and tossed out. In fact, all of the references could have been hidden away when visitors came by or tossed out, leaving no trace of their usage.

using reference is not the same as using photo, you should do a better job at description. While every human being uses references (how would you draw a tree if you have not seen one?) that's not the same as to say that Frank or any artists use photo references. Frazzetta did not. Kim jung gi, a live artist, does not. He uses imagination and memory. You should look these up. References are a must, present or acquinted by memory. Photos are not. The debate, however, seems boring and dumb. No one creates a masterpiece by just copying a photo. Frazzetta at that is untouchable.

Artists use models all the time for paintings and objects for still life. I don't think that their work is any less for it. " Digital painting " or cad now that is questionable.

The difference here from most guys using photos heavily is, that he first did the sketch, the poses etc, and after that made his own reference with his own camera and colleagues. Today many digital artists, just fiddle together images they find on the web, and are limited to the poses they find. And that is probably what frazetta meant by "copying from photos", that the photo was there first, and the artists just does a copy of it, whilst he made the pose, the painting, all that jazz, and then, when he found it necessary, made the photos to help his painting come to live. I think that is one thing that needs to be distigunished.

I think Frank even used bodybuilding magazines like Muscle and Fitness and Flex as I would see almost exact poses and musculature from some of my favourite bodybuilders later showing up in Frank's paintings. Many great artist use references from photos or real life.

I'm working now on a video about Frazetta's proficiency with portraying violence for my God Loves Comics channel. He was quoted as saying he didn't like photo refs because he wanted things to look fantastic and unrealistic. But clearly he modeled so many protagonists after himself. And his comic work featured the kinds of punches that suggested a man who either studied boxing photos or had a photographic memory for the bizarre almost surrealistic distortions to the face experienced at the exact moment a punch landed.

theres no "cheating" involved, it makes sense to use reliable references . this guy knew just how much to exaggerate, and enhance the human figure, very dramatic and skilful

Isn't there a book he published where he actually showed himself photographing models in poses he eventually put into his paintings ? I'm almost positive I saw something like that.

Photography being Frank's hobby,he used it to study poses,angles,effects of lighting and etc. Then he would apply the knowledge he learned from that to his art. But I don't believe he would "reference " any photos while actually painting his illustrations as he felt it would hinder his personal vision or tighten the work too much. And that shows in his work. I believe that's a big reason why he would rework some pieces later as he refined his knowledge in those areas later. I personally wish he hadn't in some pieces as some lost their earlier looseness. That said, I'm sure he did "reference " photos when doing a work involving a real person as that is needed to capture a truer likeness. Nothing wrong with that. Some people I've known in my life as an artists think that even making an under drawing for a painting is "cheating". Laymen just need to stay quiet most times,lol.

for the sake of clarity and to dispel any misinterpretation about artists using references, we need to identify what reference we are talking about, what type of reference is mostly used, and which is not by an artist depending on his mastery and the field he works in. so are we talking about live models? or photographs? are we talking about human anatomy or animal anatomy references? are we talking about lighting and shadow scenarios? or maybe color palettes? are we talking about environment, landscape, or architecture references? are we talking about everyday life objects? how about clothing folds dynamics or just cloth patterns? so the question is, does an artist totally master these elements? or acquired a visual library that encompasses all that exists in the world with all its intricacy and subtlety? i dont think so, one can master several of these elements but he would still need to look out for some of the other elements. one can master anatomy, lighting, and perspective but does he know for example what the inside of a baroque building looks like or the intricate pattern of a mosque's wall? does he have a clear image of what an airplane engine looks like? i think the general idea is when people talk about reference they tend to think about anatomy since it is the most appealing and most difficult to master., and forget about all the other elements that are as much important.

Your point is pointless. when he said," don't copy" he meant don't draw like another person. (There's literally a interview of him talking about this exact subject) Every artist use photo references because of the structure of the body when you're drawing a unique pose especially if you want it to look realistic & believable. You don't have to use a photo reference you can use a live model but still a reference will be used.. you obviously don't know anything about art because before cameras existed people had models act out live scenes so they can get that believability in their paintings.. And when he said everything comes out of his imagination he meant the unique poses the backgrounds the fighting with tigers.. the world that he created was totally his.

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

There´s nothing wrong using photographs for your work, in fact, it makes sense. You can´t draw a battleship from World War II just from... imagination.

Proverbs 27:4 “Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?”

Who cares?!!

I Don't think we, as Artists understand just how Psychological Art is.. and the PROFOUND impact not believing in yourself can have on your Art, Personality.. and Success. for a *LONG* time i thought Artists "Studied" Anatomy and Reference Photos and somehow Stored all of that in their heads, only to use it later.. my Dad who Drew a lot thought the same thing, even though he drew from Reference all the time! its easy to believe what you've been told your whole life by non artists or people who haven't actually been there.. you got your entire family telling you that Artists just imagine shit out of nowhere and that's how Art is made, when you actually go to school or read books... TEACH yourself or you're taught, that's completely untrue.. now Granted after drawing for decades at a time you can start drawing with Reference at times. depending on how many times you've done a subject.. but ive never seen an Artist who doesn't use Reference for something, even when they've Practiced their entire lives. i cannot tell you how discouraged i felt growing up, not being able to just draw things out of my mind without any sort of reference.. it was only when i started copying the art i saw others doing that i got better. but like always you have people diminishing your accomplishments "Oh you're just TRACING!, oh you had a REFERENCE!? so you mean you didn't just imagine this in your mind and draw it? YOU USED GUIDE LINES!?" when those same people couldn't draw a Stick Man. its really sad how Petty people can be. most would rather Stomp on a Flower than see it grow into something beautiful. just because their Garden is full of Weeds.

There are many masters of realism who would never use photo references, because photography was not yet invented when they were around. They used live models as artists still do to this day. Frazetta might have done the same, along with photos and his studies of Bridgeman anatomy books. To what degree he used which is irrelevant. The end result matters.

I have a frazetta how to book from years ago. His ideas, some photos and live models also, for references …. I see no issues with it

If you're a good artist, you should be able to produce the same level of quality from observation of a model posing in real life as you would from photo reference. Photo reference buys you time and convenience. It makes everything easier. If the illustration has to look real, you bet the artist is using every tool at their disposal to make sure that they will be paid. The point is that the art should be BETTER than just a copy of the photo. Artists also know how to use what is important and ignore what is not. Producing art from looking at something is easy. Copying is just practice. When you shoot reference, you shoot the same subject from different angles, getting all the details you need to produce your image. Sometimes you might want to copy someone like Frazetta to learn and understand what his thought process is. You'll gain insight into someone else's mind and you won't get that from a book or a class. But you have to use that knowledge in your own work, not try to be a knock off doing the same subject matter in the same style.

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.

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

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

In the fire and ice documentary F.F. states he took pictures of himself for reference. I think he used his wife for the women.🤷‍♂️

Many of em did anyway, no biggie, especially Fazetta's works they're amazing and awe-making. It's problematic when the poses makes no sense to the context --surely lacking artistry and imagination.

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

Every artist uses reference for something at some point. Frazetta never used reference as a crutch of any sort. Most of your examples contain less than 15% of used parts of any photo. You should produce videos on Greg Land and Greg Horn as examples of artists who rely on photographs.

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.

I'd add, the images you show as his first images aren't the first images. He sketched extensively.

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?

Its just come to mind that he had to paint his celebrity caricature pieces from some reference unless he actually met them.

If your goal is to create something that already exists, as it exists. Than drawing from reference is the obvious choice. Personally, I think something is lost when you constrain yourself to reality. But I know, not everyone feels that way.

A painter is a painter . An illustrator is an illustrator and will use any possible means for a final result . The camera obscura has a long history in art .

Great video. All great artists used models to reference their art. Not everybody knows a model who would like to pose for them, not everybody has the money to hire someone to do so, using photos is the next best thing certainly in this day and age where taking a picture is as simple as picking up your phone. I don't see any problem with that.

Whatever Frazetta was doing, I have yet to have seen replicated.

​ @Jim Hust first, don't try to lessen the impact of your passive-aggressive comments and pass it for authoritative assertions. since you say you are a teacher I guess you know a picture is polysemic and has meanings and SO ARE WORDS, there is text and there is subtext, there is what you say, and there is what you mean. in your case and your other acolytes, your comments, prose-wise, aren't even sophisticated or subtle enough. They are overtly direct attacks and mean insults. it is rich coming from you saying that I attacked you personally while you know very well you are the one who started it. here let me remind you of some of your nice comments and some of your friend's. I see that you have taken some of them out to justify your claim that "no one has been "attacked" and pass for the innocent sheep (that is quite mischievous. I see that You don't like being outed publicly) but anyway here they are for everyone to judge : "Dave DFW" to me : "you are an idiot... " / " RU-vidrs are a bunch of clapping cheerleaders... Jim Hust to me and TheGeordieGypsy : "Bekkouri doesn't know anything about art. you two should get along nicely " Jim hust to DragonChaserKev : "go join the flat earth society." Jim Hust to @American Dischord: " ...I just don't think you think." (well, i guess you forgot to delete those) as most readers would have noticed by now, it is quite revealing to see that while most commentators are civil and respectful, the most toxic comments come from you and your acolytes. maybe in your small elitist world, it is ok to assume things, to talk down and quickly judge people like this but in the real world, we call it rudeness and being a condescending jerk. and you call yourself a teacher, I pity your students. and while we are on it, you are not the only teacher here, I teach and analyze pictures and words for a living, my friend. and here is a demonstration: there is an evident and revealing speech pattern in all your comments. you always bring the debate and the discussions to yourself, claim to be qualified, knowledgeable, and better than everyone else, and focus on what you achieved compared to Frazetta. that is called in psychology NARCISSISM born of SUPERIORITY COMPLEX. You are obviously quite full of yourself and you can't help it, it just seeps into all of your comments. maybe you should refrain from that and for once let your work speak for itself as real artists do. and by the way, why would i be jealous of you, Jesus listen to yourself. you are ridiculous, I don't even know you, and I for sure haven't seen any of your so-called art, just pompous self gratulating words but please we all here are curious and would genuinely like to see samples and PROOFS of your exceptional art. most artists knew Frazetta used references, this is nothing new for the discerning eye. i humbly tried to give the answer to that question in this video for those who still believed in the opposite. as for saying i am in denial, you must be joking. if I was, i wouldn't have made this video and tackled this subject. unlike you, i try to be objective, moderate, and respectful of everyone's opinions. i dare you to give an example where i tried to enforce my opinion on others or attacked them openly as you did. i try as much as i can to avoid judging people. unless you are in their shoes you can't assume anything, and by this same standard, i bet you don't want to be judged either. so stop assuming/ saying that other artists have no imagination or digital artists cannot draw and only trace from layers. when in several cases it is true there is a ton of them who can prove you otherwise. most artists prefer to work from imagination, true, it is the fastest but most of all it is the most cherished part of the creation process. traditional or digital, i doesn't matter as long as you are talented enough and willing to evolve and get better at your craft. And don’t put words in my mouth saying I think unqualified people’s view is to be relied on, I never overtly expressed that. But with the same token, I would say that you think that qualified people's view is the only reliable and acceptable one. I beg to differ, that is not true, that is the whole debate of reception theory. Author against Critics against the general audience. The relevance and importance of an “oeuvre d’art” do not depend on critics' and academics' view only. Proof: there are as many critics that there are different reviews and analyses of said work. The audience might be, as you say, uncultivated or unqualified but it is a biased elitist view. The audience can recognize a good piece of art. It might not understand the mechanics, the structure, and how it was made but it is an essential element in the process. And as Jauss and Iser theorized It does participate, actualize and give art a whole new meaning. of course, it is always a relative thing, and as Stuart Hall stated it depends on everyone’s individual culture and interpretation whether you are a critic or a simple viewer. let’s not forget another factor: the audience horizon of expectation or in other words the changing of time and evolution of tastes. Art history proves that many artworks (in most artistic fields) that have been bashed in the past by the so-called academics and critics and even the general audience are now hailed and appreciated but also in contrast those that were hailed are now on the contrary forgotten and overlooked. So the idea that my view is better than yours because I am qualified is pure rubbish. Look. me standing up now, it is not because i disagree with you but I had enough, you got personally and gradually rude and insulting in your comments, so i had to call you out on it. you know if i was on denial and didn't tolerate another opinion we won't be having this debate now. I would have censored and blocked you and all the others since day one but here you are... i guess now that you might be trying to use this video as an excuse to vent and this platform to push your personal agenda and beliefs, to sell and promote yourself. Mind you, I don't care about any of it but do not insult me or other people's intelligence to feel better about yourself or validate your giant ego. We will not accept it as you certainly would not. We are not your children to scorn us and we are certainly not your neophyte students to look down on us. You want to debate and criticize? Fine. You are more than welcome Just be courteous and respectful toward everyone. but maybe i am asking too much of you.

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

Let's see your artwork , sir !

There are too many architectural, costumes, weapons, anatomical details in animals and human figures in Frank Frazetta's work that is hard to believe he never used some photo or other references.

Uhm... almost every artist uses (or sometimes uses) reference. There's nothing wrong with that.

He did and he was a f#####g legend about it. The imaginarium of fantasy is heavily indebted to this man's vision, hard work, and talent.

Hey Bekkouri, I just wanted to say this video is incredibly interesting, not just for the subject matter (as Frazetta is an artistic legend) but also for how well you have put this together! Idiots in the comments are only embarassing themselves by being confrontational. Every single artist has used / uses reference at some point when creating their art, whether they be musicians, architects, dancers and/or graphic artists. Inspiration is a human virtue that comes from appreciating someone else's talents/gifts and wanting to replicate them for yourself ( in your own style). One of my favourites is KIM JUNG GI who draws without reference, however, he explains constantly (in interviews) that he has spent his entire life creating a mental library of reference, that he has built from constantly studying, observing and drawing from live studies. You are obviously a great fan of Frazetta's work and I can tell that you don't mean any disrespect with this video. You are for one, obviously trying to dispell the idea/myth/nonsense that using reference makes you somehow less of an artist; and two, maybe calling Frazetta out on some bullshit he said in an interview many moons ago! Haha! Who knows man, the guy could've been having a bad day and just wanted to look cool / try and impress / create some controversy? The 70's/80's were a crazy time! Anyway, great analysis, fantastic video and keep up the good work!

11:40 I'm not sure what he's illustrating on the back. Ribs perhaps, going for a lean mean look? Odd to have such well muscled shoulders with such a lack of defined Latissimus dorsi though.

Thought my left studio monitor was broken for a second there.

Copy photos and make paintings like Frazetta.

Of course he did. We all do? Nothing new under the sun.

The great artists of the last 100 years used photographs: Norman Rockwell, Drew Struzan, Bob Peak, Al Parker, Bernie Fuchs, Austin Briggs...

Realize, it doesn't matter much. Whether you use a photo to easily transfer all the reference distances at once, transfer them one or a few at a time using the edge of your thumb as a scale, or work them out visually and keep them in your head, it's all about the same. It's just a data set. There's very little actual flex in 'I did all the data in my head' versus 'I had all the data on a piece of paper', at least for art. This is the kind of crap that impresses those who don't really know any better. The data set transfer of the raw scale and proportions is actually the least artistic part of art, despite the fact that it impresses a lot of people. The visual staging of the subject before the reference, and the artistic interpretation after the reference are the more important parts of general art. The basic transfer of sizes, proportions, and alignment are pretty much mechanical. Only when you alter them on purpose or create unreal works focusing on them are they really that artistic and important. Think of Michelangelo. It was the initial artistic posing and set up, and the finishing. Lots of other artists got proportions and alignments as well as he did, but their works still are much lesser compared to his. It wouldn't really matter much to the work if Michelangelo did it entirely by memory from long practice, or had used some form of camera obscura effect. That's a basically mechanical part of the process either way, most of the art of art is in the other aspects. It's not that there isn't some aspect of it to art, but it's the least artistic part of art. Give 10,000 people an opaque projector and they can almost all trace the outlines etc. But almost none of it will be art. And only a tiny number out of the 10,000 would be able to produce art that was obviously well above the rest. IOW the easy reference just makes it easier for actual artists, it doesn't make a non-artist into an artist.

Your camera is an extension of your eye, where sometimes the image does not stay, thus the camera, captures and holds the pose forever...... THUSLY I encourage people to use your camera as added tool to your art kit a human can hold a pose for only so long. A photo gives you more time with the model without the model fee....and importantly perspective as well as composition decisions are an added bonus! So students of art. It's okay to use photos. But ONLY, as a reference. Not to violate copy right laws. Not to mention THEFT!

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.

Rembrandt Van Rijn used complex mirror arrangement to reflect his visage to canvas. He still painted those works. Answer to Frazetta using reference material is so what. He did paint those works.

thanks. I agree. the old masters used reference, had regular models pose fot them, most of the great paintings are done with the help of using reference. Frazetta used references as most artists do, sometimes he even swiped from old masters. I didn't include this information in here but i 'll include it in other upcoming videos talking about artists influences...

everyone uses refercences from time to time. that´s a fact. you can´t draw or paint what you haven´t seen , especially anatomy and lighting. if you are good you can get it right overall but never 100%. he clearly uses alot of references when it comes to anatomy and lighting. like everyone does. but does this really make a better painting? i say no. when i look at the painting at 12:47 i very much prefer the left one. it might have some incorrectnesses but i feels much more dynamic and alive. it has much more soul to it, then the super polished right one. the overall colors and dynamic is much more compelling, cohesive and powerful than in the right one. the world and characters feel like real characters in that world surrounding them in the left picture. in the right one though it might be more polished but it looks like staged scene. that´s mostly the case if you overuse references. i also don´t like the lighting on the right one and the pose of the girl. it´s never a good idea to rework an art to make it "better". i´m totally fine with paintings that have flaws in it. the left one catches me emotionally whereas the right one is overworked and loses it´s soul. to me frazetta is very much overrated anyway. yes he has a distinct style but i get´s toned down in many of his paintings because they are just overdone imo.

It no secret that if you draw something enough times, you learn how to do it. It is also no secret that you learn to draw either from life studies or from photos. Unless your art is very, very simple, you will need a reference from time to time. This is no sin, and no a big deal. It's only the insecure artist that worry about this kind of thing. And I'm sure he was insecure. People looked down on his work and belittled it. So he fibbed a little. BFD

He was a comic book artist. So he did draw alot of things out of his head. Which sometimes caused overexagerrated figures which I have grew to dislike.but he interpreted most of the time .

Frank could draw honestly, there is actually something to be de mystified? He probably did a many things like projectors, sculpted , tacing , crayons and hired models. Solved for you , I know some great artists with art in the Smithsonian. Wonder no more , of course they will use reference. There's no rule that artists don't, in fact they will do anything it takes to get paid. When your artist nothing is off the table, Promise. Good vid bro thanks

Interesting video - thanks. Frazetta stated that he did not consider copying a photo art. In my opinion, copying a photo and using photo reference is hardly the same thing.... Or am I wrong?