Thanks, Evan.
I didn't start out working in the digital realm, in fact I was intimidated by it and kind of resented the implications of it. It seemed like cheating to me until I realized that it had as many drawbacks as, and was just as demanding as, paint on canvas. I think most 'old school' and variously educated artists like myself are capable of creating our own perspectives of subjects - be they sketched out or painstakingly constructed by placing a grid over a 3-view drawing, drawing the cubes by 3 point perspective, making cross sections of the aircraft (in this case), and so on and so forth. It's time consuming and not necessarily reliable. Most of us use photos to help with accuracy and efficiency. We'll also search through photographs to look for background elements that are appealing, study them, and place them in our compositions. Most of us will also look at how other artists handle certain aspects of similar or identical subject matter - for style, trends, and other elements.
But as a rule I think it's safe to say that we don't use other artist's compositions. For me, even when it comes to finding a reference upon which to build a particular perspective, I don't use somebody's painting. The reason has less to do with copyright law or moral scruples than it does the fact that such previously used perspectives have 'already been done' and, as in the case of the 109 above, people notice it.
As an artist it embarrasses me to be called out for the Bf 109 piece in question because I know that, full back story taken into consideration or not, it breaks the rules that I've outlined above. I have defended my work as being the original product of my own hand - which it most certainly is in every way, background and foreground. But at the time that I painted it, and as my first aviation piece, it was done, basically, to see if I could paint it at all. I remember fussing with the blurred propeller for a long time, and the further that I deviated from the piece I was referencing the worse it looked. In the end I only pulled the effect off by succeeding in nearly copying it exactly. I was already an accomplished architectural artist but I'd never painted a moving prop before. 75 paintings and almost 10 years later - it's still hard to get right.
I think what exacerbated the 109 example was the fact that my piece was commercially successful. That wasn't my original intent, but after the air cleared with Weik and the EHanger debate was resolved, I later released it as a limited edition along with other work of mine. It was later used as the cover of Adolf Galland's book,
The First and the Last. I believed that my work had been accepted as at least 'original enough' and in retrospect that was perhaps a mistake, but not one that I made maliciously.
Anyway: I'd frankly hate to see other artists feel that they need to be too "careful" in reaction to my experiences in this area. Being careful stifles experimentation and creativity, in my opinion. Aviation art - all art - would suffer for it. As painters we're not generally impressionists (or worse). We are attempting to recreate more than we are creating. For that we inevitably work off of references, usually photos, and by necessity we copy reality in order to be successful realists. Insofar as that pursuit goes - God's speed!
But when in search of a perspective or a background - construct it yourself or base it on a photograph. Don't base it on another painting. One simple rule and all will avoid the above 'call out' I've experienced.
Above: Overlay similar to the one posted on EHanger many years ago. My Bf 109 over top of Weik's 'referenced' perspective. But, lesson learned in any case.
- R