Sunday 21.54. I've removed this post. It was meant as an amusing post-script to
my earlier post on the Escher subject, getting a laugh at the expense of my own over-exuberence. In isolation, and out of that context, it of course was neither funny nor accurate. I have now removed the post.
I have tried to apologise to all commentators personally, but cannot find contact details for Jarno, Renoir1976, WyldRyce, or nemisonic. I hope they read this.
My Books and where to get them:
Shakespeare Omnibus Collection (all 3 books) -
Amazon
Personally, the US Doctor Who annual page reminds me an old episode of Doctor Who called 'Castrovalva', with the Fifth Doctor (1982). Don't you think?
ReplyDeleteOr, it could simply resemble the 1953 piece "Relativity" by the Dutch artist M.C. Escher, which predates everything Doctor Who entirely, never mind your own work.
ReplyDeleteBorrowing from Escher is common -- and I see that the DW annual credits the inspiration.
Unless you're claiming you came up with that design on your own without ever viewing Escher's work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_%28M._C._Escher%29
The Doctor Who art looks more like Eisher inspired more than anything. If you are comparing that work with yours, I'm sorry but it puts your work to shame. The Doctor Who work creates depth and realism, while yours is flat and plain. These two pieces of art are far different then they are similiar. Also, get over yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe first image is kinda hard to look at. It's way to busy. The second image is much easier to understand and the style is far different than the first. So I really don't understand why the post to begin with.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely ridiculous to think that he swiped from you. Both are obviously Escher inspired--and as an artist, I think it is wonderful when someone does another artist such a great homage. So cheers to you both... However, Dr. Who's artist at least is paying a sophisticated homage to Escher... Yours is more cartoony and very difficult to look at. But that could be where your strength is. Perhaps you have a more playful hand. If so, I say embrace that strength. However, stop ridiculing others artwork. It is not constructive criticism. Just catty. Artists are supposed to appreciate each others work, support one and another. Not look for ways to trip each other up or to put a false claim out there that the other is swiping from them when obviously both are Escher inspired. And Escher was an artist for before either of you. So stop the false claims.
ReplyDeleteThe first looks to be a swipe of an old "Where's Waldo?" book. The second looks like professional art from a videogame strategy guide. How are they similar? Both are based on an MC Escher drawing? Come on.
ReplyDeleteReading your last entry about Blair and reading this one... Blair would have a good reason to think you're suggesting something negative about his work, via the term 'swiping'. That's what we use in this industry to determine someone stole from us... you swipe a piece of candy from the candy store... doesn't mean you're paying homage to the candy store.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore you swipe artwork and claim it as your own - it's hot an homage to the artist or the work... Ah, there's the problem. So let's clear this up quick:
So you're saying that Blair swiped, stole, took without asking, an idea from a piece of art you created? Or are you saying he swiped stole or took without asking, the same idea from an M.C. Escher painting, which you yourself took, stole or swiped and added your Dr. Who nuance to it?
You can make the declaration that you're saying 'great minds think alike' and perhaps they do... however when you use the term swipe... it puts people on edge. Especially after the whole Rob Granito fiasco we all went through. There's still witch hunts going on because of that.
Use your terminology a bit more carefully next time you want to point out similarities between two or more artists/ideas. That's my advice.
Now with regards to your post here... I see no similarities between the two pieces. I see a sequentials page that dictates the idea of an M.C. Escher piece. With you, I see a direct copy of the same piece in question, only with Dr. Who nuances included. Rather big difference in comparision, I'd say.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies to everyone, I am removing the blog post because it was wrong for me to make any such suggestion in those terms. I am very sorry, and by the way I rather like Blair's work on Doctor Who. - Kev F
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to personally apologise for the offence given by my last blog post featuring art by Blair Shedd. It was meant as an amusing post-script to my earlier post on the Escher subject, getting a laugh at the expense of my own over-exuberence. In isolation, and out of that context, it of course was neither funny nor accurate. I have now removed the post. - Kev F Sutherland
ReplyDeleteI have tried to apologise to all commentators personally, but cannot find contact details for Jarno, Renoir1976, WyldRyce, or nemisonic. I hope they read this.
On the plus side, this is my most read blog this month. Small consolation. Ooh, and I see I got mentioned on Frank Cho's forum.
ReplyDeleteI reiterate, this posting was supposed to be a joke at my expense, having first suggested Blair's cover was not the first Dr Who strip to "do an Escher" (having done so myself earlier), I then a few months later had the Phantom Stranger cover pointed out to me so mentioned that in a later blog.
The third blog was meant to follow up those two, making light of my over-exuberance in labouring this point. Out of context it made me look like an arse, so once again I apologise. Especially to those who, after 22 years in the comics business, are encountering me and my work for the first time.
No offense, and no apologize needed.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I didn't understood it was quite a private joke. My english is not subtile enough I suppose :-)
Keep up the good work.
Jarno (from France)