David Mack: Professional Tracer (minor New Avengers spoilers)

KyleWPeterson

I don't know if any of you have been following this at all, but a fellow poster on IGN recently brought this little gem to the attention of myself and several other users over on the Comics Board there.

Charagon wrote:

Stolen from the Marvel Board.

The thread starts off normally enough but a small notice of some art swiping snowballs with a second swipe which causes Mack himself to come in and defend himself. His lack of credit towards Maleev did not go unnoticed though. While Mack did come up with a plausible excuse for his 'homage', Maleev's response seem, to me, a little catty.

Maleev later forgives Mack but at that point it's too late. The snowball keeps growing and growing until the question becomes 'What part of Mack's work ISN'T traced?'

Mack posts again but doesn't really address anything that's been posted. Like blatant tracing. Maleev also weighs in again. Whether his comment is for or against Mack is up for debate.

There's a lot of talk about the cover art and whether or not Mack owes something to Ben Watts and there's a lot of talk about whether or not anybody should care, even after a copy of Marvel's policy is posted. Apparently somebody at Marvel cared because somebody from Bendis' forums reported that the cover won't be used.

Things become even funnier when Oeming comes to Mack's defense by posting exactly what Mack should be doing, but isn't. As if there's no significant difference between that and this. Oeming doesn't really respond to that. Instead he calls the people calling out Mack a keyboard mob and isn't heard from again.

The rest of the thread is pretty boring. Another trace is found and analyzed and the rest is summed up here.

And then...

Charagon wrote:

Still going, and getting more absurd with each post.

Oeming weighs in again with a really silly excuse for Mack and then again with a message from Mack himself. Apparently because he was

writing about a Skrull, Skrulldevil

was intentionally drawn in poses from other artists. The same goes for Echo... because she apparently has come across real live celebs in magazines....
It seems the bit in Mack's letter about Adam Hughes is bullcrap too.

And finally...

Charagon wrote:

And just when you think it couldn't get any more absurd, Mike Choi shows up. Not to talk about swiping, but to talk about people being rude about it on Bendis' message boards. Choi goes back and forth with people about their behavior, because apparently being rude on a message board is worse than stealing art for damn near a whole entire damn comic.

Adam Hughes' girlfriend/manager also shows up and debunks Mack's claim that he informed Hughes of his 'homage' plan. She remains calm about the matter. This is as close as she comes to condeming Mack.

All the while Choi is still going at it and generally acting like an idiot.

Oh, add Alan Davis to the list too now.

Kyle

Lux

The thing about tracing models is that it produces a really, really inconsistent look. I'm glad they changed the NA #39 cover cause that looks nothing like the character on the inside.

Virral

Hmmm... some of those "traces" didn't seem that close to me. Like he used the same pose, and then just the fact that it's the same character makes it enough to appear like it's the same thing.

Of course some of them were pretty blatant, so there you go. I loved seeing Oemings examples of producing his own references photos, that was definitely interesting.

It made me laugh that one of the people was bitching about him using the same image multiple times, considering that happens in every. single. book! I mean, I hate that they do it but it's like you might as well call out every single comic book artist on the face of the planet.

Balefuego

Ugh did we really need a whole new topic on this? It was discussed in the comics this week thread already.

I'm already sick of this whole thing but I'll repost this for completeness sake.

David Mack wrote:

New Avengers #39

---

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Please don’t read this until after you have read the issue.


Now that the book is out, I'll explain my thought
process and intentions behind this, and you can consider
for your self beyond that. I couldn't comment on this
in the same detail before without spoiling some
reveals in Brian's story.

Ok, again… Spoilers. Everyone has read the issue right?

When Daredevil appears in this story, he is actually a Shape-mimicking skrull. I've drawn Daredevil before, but I have not drawn him as a Skrull before. Instead of just drawing a normal Daredevil in the story , I thought I could create an eerie hint of his skrull-ness in the image of him that may not be apparent immediately, but in the context of reading the story, after you see the reveal of DD as a skrull ,you may turn back and get it.

I thought it would be a subversive storytelling device to make each image of Daredevil based on an image of the actual Daredevil drawn in DD by DD artists. He'll look like DD but in the back of your mind you kind of think something is a little strange here. He's stiffer, he's smiling at the wrong
time...maybe in the back of your mind he's more like a mimic of the Daredevil you are used to seeing instead of the actual Daredevil comfortable in his own skin. That’s why I started with that iconic cover image of DD and even telegraphed it by using the similar buildings. You don't necessarily pick up on this immediately in the story, but maybe he seems to act and look a little off...and then when the reveal happens and you go back
and re-read the story, it dawns on you. That wasn't Daredevil at all, it was a copy of him. And that’s one of the reasons, I couldn’t speak on this until the issue came out.

When I came up with this I thought I was being clever
in the story.
And I did not realize that the page with DD was going
to be up on promo before the story as a whole was out,
where that realization of DD as a copy would happen
before the entire DD scene was read.

This was sort of like in the first DD story that Brian
and I did, Wake Up, where the first issue of that
story is the first issue to come after Joe Quesada's
run on the series.

And the first scene of the book, is drawn to look
as though Joe Quesada drew it… but just a little off. And
then more progressively so, until we see that version
of DD is a comic book play of Daredevil happening
within a child's imagination. And then the book cuts
into a contrasting painted scene.


And that was what I thought was a high concept
key to the art approach in this entire issue for me. That
when this skrull is in human form, it is always an
emulation of something else, but just a little off
of the authentic version in a way that isn't
immediately apparent visually but just feels eerie.
I wasn't going to be drawing the actual skrull in
skrull form in this issue, so I thought this would be
a clever and fun way to approach the alien-ness of it...as well as the
mimickry of the creature.

The Skrull would automatically turn into parts of
Wolverine when Wolverine attacked it. It would at
times exhibit features of Cyclops , and Nightcrawler,
and the Human Torch, or Firestar.
So I set about with that idea in mind, to try to draw the figure
of the character as referenced from some of my
favorite creators as well. Something that encrypted a
built-in kind of mimicry and familiarity into the
creature's body language.


I had done something like this with Echo in all of the
projects I had done before. Here are two characters,
the skrull and Echo battling and each of their talents
is to mimic the body language and skills of others.

When I first wrote Echo in Daredevil: Parts of a Hole
with Joe Quesada drawing, I asked Joe to always draw
Echo's figure mimicking the figures and body language
of Daredevil and Bullseye, or whoever she was copying
in the story. I asked him in the script to give her
the exact same figure stance copied off of the
Daredevil figure that she was emulating.

In the Echo story that I drew later, I drew Echo in
all of the styles of master artists through out history.
I showed her absorbing their styles into her own, and
it becoming part of her, and then literally drew or
painted her in the iconic images and styles of those
artists as a part of the story telling.

In this issue I was returning to the character, but
she was now an Avenger. A member of a super team, and
around a variety of super hero characters with a
multitude of abilities.
So I wanted her to be visually different this time. I
wanted her body language to feel colored by the
accents of all the other styles and super moves that
she would have absorbed. Where I had painted her
realistically before and drawn and painted her as a
variety of iconic fine art imagery throughout the ages
that she had absorbed, I now wanted to embrace the
comic book super hero aspect of her, and draw her in a
kind of iconic comic book style and figures. I didn't
want it to be overly glaring at first, but something
that would seem absorbed into her and that you would
catch after the fact. So, like I drew her in
references from my favorite fine art masters in the
past, I referenced her from some of my favorite comic
book artists in this story.

This was my intention in this issue, and I thought it
would give an undercurrent of paranoia as well in the
story as much of this storyline is about identitiy and
paranoia of who is a copy of a human and who is not.
So I even encrypted some of this in Wolverine and
Hawkeye in the story to add to that paranoia and questions of identity.
Again, something that is not necessarily cartoonish or
glaring, but that comes through subconsciously or even
consciously on a re-read.

Any of you who are familiar with my body of work know
that I try to cultivate different visual looks for
each of the projects and storylines that I do. And I
often make experimental or unconventional choices in the story
approach. In particular, I’ve been friends with Adam Hughes and his girlfriend Allison for many years, and gave them a heads up about this idea, and they seemed to get a kick out of it, and they know I’m not trying to build a career on the look of another artist.

This is what I thought was a kind of high concept
approach to this issue and I thought I was doing
something interesting and really embracing the comic
book super hero history and aspect of things, specific
to this issue, which is quite different from my usual
approach.
Believe me it wasn't easy, and was actually more time
consuming and meticulous than I imagined or than it
would have been to just draw from the hip, or from any
of my own photo reference without doing this idea.
Anyone who has been reading my current Kabuki: The
Alchemy story knows I can draw on my own, and do it in
a variety of ways in service to the story.

That said, this is just me expressing to you my
intention and idea behind the issue. That doesn't
mean it was a successful venture or idea. I didn't
count on the preview page with DD coming out before
the issue as a whole, or that I’d screw up on the cover and redo it, which perhaps allowed the idea to backfire on me. And you may not even like the
idea or see any conceptual merit in it. And at this point, I cannot help but to think that it was an idea that was better left in my head than in reality. But it was me
continuing with the approach to the Echo story that I
had before and building on that, and a sort of love
letter story device to some of my favorite artists in
super hero comics, the way previous Echo stories were
to what are considered the fine artists. Besides the
artists named already, you'll find all kinds of art
quirks in that story from Kirby to Quesada.

I didn't mean to rub anyone the wrong way with this approach and I didn't mean for this to be a conversation that distracted from Brian's story.
When in fact, I tried to tell the story as clearly as
I could and tried to embrace a storytelling that
readers of this series would enjoy and be comfortable
with, and the rest of my concept was intended as a
kind of subtext to that.

Boutros

This story is weeks old and obviously the guy quoted in the OP does not visit the Bendis Board on a regular basis, or he would not be surprised even a little bit by Mike Choi. That is what Mike Choi does.

KyleWPeterson

I don't really see how the story could be "weeks old" since the issue was released five days ago and most of the swipes in that thread were caught even more recently than that. I know Mack gets in trouble for stuff like this every now and then, but I've never seen as many examples from a single book before now or had the chance to see so many creators weigh in this.

Anyway, I think it's all pretty pathetic, and I cannot believe that there's anyone in the comic industry (fans or creators) that could even begin to condone what he did.

Kyle

wwtMask

This story is sorta old. I read about Mack's tracing of the NA cover 2 or 3 weeks ago on CBR. I don't think we condone it so much as just accept that there are going to be some cheaters in the process.

Boutros

There was a preview released like a goddamn month ago. There were threads on the Bendis Boards about this weeks ago that Mack and Bendis and others posted in. When I picked up the issue I remembered that I read a while back Mack said he'd explain about the references after the issue shipped. I don't see people necessarily condoning what he did, but not everyone is flipping shit over it because Mack is a cool guy and can draw well without referencing and he admitted his mistake and apologized.

Nogs

i dunno, i thought his explanation was kinda cool and sheds new light on it. but whatever, i liked reading the issue.

Robos A Go Go

Nogs wrote: »

i dunno, i thought his explanation was kinda cool and sheds new light on it. but whatever, i liked reading the issue.

I did too, until I learned that the hero Echo is copying is Caitlyn Fairchild from Gen 13, a Wildstorm book.

Balefuego

The Gen 13 character referenced is actually Rainmaker, Fairchild is built like She-Hulk.

But again he says explicitly in his post that he picked poses from all his favorite superhero artists, not specifically Marvel ones.

Regardless, yes this story is old considering the cover was solicited months ago and the preview (which includes a Maleev referenced Daredevil) was released weeks ago.

Mack has given his side and has said in hindsight it was a bad idea, so feel free to think whatever you want.

SageinaRage

The only one of those that looked 'traced' was the bridal shower one, the rest seemed to take some aspects, but were also different in other ways. Honestly, there's only so many 'superhero' poses and styles you can use, especially with the volume of books that are put out every month. I have no problem with artists taking certain looks and styles from photos and things as long as it's not a direct copy, and I'm not seeing much of that here.

Calamity Jane

I'd like to say I think very little of dudes bringing up message board flame wars.

SageinaRage

The more I look at this, the more retarded it is. He stole poses? Is this your first time reading comics?

For someone like Greg Land I can understand wanting to call him out, because his art theft is jarring even to someone who doesn't know he's done it. It doesn't work in the comic because he put no effort into it. But this? The stuff he's drawing looks good on the page. It works.

Sentry

Wow... if you can't tell the difference between mimicking poses and TRACING figures, then I feel completely sorry for you.

That one pic of Daredevil even has guidelines that show it is a freaking trace... the lines intersect the picture at the exact same place each time. that's one hell of a coincidence, no?

But hey, if you don't care, fine. I don't particularly care. But don't go accepting such a pathetic explanation in light of the evidence. Have a little more self respect then that.

SageinaRage

What, standing straight up with his head forward? Oh yeah that's gotta be a trace, you NEVER see that in daredevil. And god forbid he actually maintain proportions when drawing a character.

Honestly, I don't know if it's a trace or not, it might be. My point is that there's zero reason for anyone to care about it. So you found a comic from 5 years ago that looks similar. Ok? With the volume of work these people put out, it's pretty much fucking inevitable, especially with people that go for a more realistic style.

Angry

Sentry wrote: »

Wow... if you can't tell the difference between mimicking poses and TRACING figures, then I feel completely sorry for you.

That one pic of Daredevil even has guidelines that show it is a freaking trace... the lines intersect the picture at the exact same place each time. that's one hell of a coincidence, no?

But hey, if you don't care, fine. I don't particularly care. But don't go accepting such a pathetic explanation in light of the evidence. Have a little more self respect then that.

so you think he took the daredevil cover into photoshop, shrunk it, then printed it out so that he could trace it?

Robos A Go Go

When you put it like that, I have to ask if any professional artist has ever been caught tracing, or if it's just kind of an exaggeration people throw around.

Sentry

SageinaRage wrote: »

What, standing straight up with his head forward? Oh yeah that's gotta be a trace, you NEVER see that in daredevil. And god forbid he actually maintain proportions when drawing a character.

Honestly, I don't know if it's a trace or not, it might be. My point is that there's zero reason for anyone to care about it. So you found a comic from 5 years ago that looks similar. Ok? With the volume of work these people put out, it's pretty much fucking inevitable, especially with people that go for a more realistic style.

Again, it seems you are engaging in a game of intellectual dishonesty with yourself.

Here, try this. Go draw a guy. Just a guy standing there. Now draw the same thing again. Now, put them side by side and draw three horizontal lines through the figures at random points.

The odds of these lines going through the exact same point on both pictures is amazingly small. Even though you are the artist that drew both. Now imagine how small they would be with two completely different artists.

The fact is, he is CLEARLY a tracer. The pictures do not "look" the same... they ARE the same. They are the exact same fucking picture.

Just accept it, then move on to whether or not that matters.

Angry

except they aren't identical.

Nogs

Chasing Amy wrote:

Collector: Hey man. If somebody draws something and then you draw the same thing right on top of it, not going out-side the designated original art, what do you call that!

Little kid: I don't know. Tracing?

Collector: See?

Banky: It's not tracing.

Collector: Oh, but it is.

Banky: Do you want your book signed or what?

Collector: Hey - don't get all testy with him just because you have a problem with your station in life.

Banky: I'm secure with what I do.

Collector: Then say it - you're a tracer.

Sentry

Angry wrote: »

except they aren't identical.

except they are.

jkylefulton

There are some comic professionals that, when posting on the internet, assume they should be granted some sort of....I'm not sure of how to describe it, but it almost seems like, if you aren't blowing the creator in question, you're doing it wrong.

Wildcat

'Reverence'?

jkylefulton

That's what I was looking for, yeah.

It's amazing that, in this day and age, artists think they can get away with this stuff (and they've been trying for a long time).

muninn

Thats dissapointing, since I really enjoy Mack's art.

Bloods End

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

When you put it like that, I have to ask if any professional artist has ever been caught tracing, or if it's just kind of an exaggeration people throw around.

Greg Land

Blackjack

jkylefulton wrote: »

It's amazing that, in this day and age, artists think they can get away with this stuff.

They think they can get away with it because, unfortunately, they can.

durandal4532

Bloods End wrote: »

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

When you put it like that, I have to ask if any professional artist has ever been caught tracing, or if it's just kind of an exaggeration people throw around.

Greg Land

He's the one that does the porn-faces, right?

ZombieAsuma

I remember when Greg Land used to be a pretty good artist on Nightwing....when he still actually drew things.

Virral

Sentry wrote: »

Angry wrote: »

except they aren't identical.

except they are.

except they aren't.



There is no denying that the pose is pretty much identical, but that does NOT look like a direct trace from one page to the other. There are plenty of differences, and the similarities are just the pose and the fact that it's the same character both times. I think they are reaching with the Wolverine one, he isn't even really in the same pose (it's not a crime to have people standing upright you know).

And if, as he said, the intention was to mimic classic poses from other DD artists then that explains why he "stole" the pose as closely as possible. It wasn't a good idea, at least not without acknowledging it somehow, but I do accept that explanation and actually think it's an interesting idea.

That said, if I'd known this was old news I wouldn't have bothered posting. This is the first I'd heard about it.

KyleWPeterson

I think it would make a lot more sense if he had said he was mimicking styles going in to the book instead of after everyone caught all of these swipes. I for one don't buy it for a second.

Kyle

Balefuego

He says in the thing he didnt speak up until after the book came out because he didnt want to give away the Skrull reveal.

This stuff has been going since before the book came out, he waited until release day and then spoke his piece.

KyleWPeterson

It's totally a cop-out and you know it. This isn't the first time Mack's gotten in trouble for swiping; were those all homages too?

Kyle

Sentry

Virral wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

Angry wrote: »

except they aren't identical.

except they are.

except they aren't.



There is no denying that the pose is pretty much identical, but that does NOT look like a direct trace from one page to the other. There are plenty of differences, and the similarities are just the pose and the fact that it's the same character both times. I think they are reaching with the Wolverine one, he isn't even really in the same pose (it's not a crime to have people standing upright you know).

And if, as he said, the intention was to mimic classic poses from other DD artists then that explains why he "stole" the pose as closely as possible. It wasn't a good idea, at least not without acknowledging it somehow, but I do accept that explanation and actually think it's an interesting idea.

That said, if I'd known this was old news I wouldn't have bothered posting. This is the first I'd heard about it.

Let me know when your brain has found a rationalization for this.

No, really... I'm all fucking ears over here.

Balefuego

photo referencing is something completley different than what is being accused with New Avengers #39

Munch

For anyone wanting to see all of Mack's recent thefts in two convenient links rather than sifting through all the links in the OP, look here and here. You can see that he did in fact trace line for line in many places, cobbling together characters from multiple sources, using the same shading, and even swiping a building for a background.

Edit: Bale, photo referencing is only okay when you own the photos, or at least don't trace the exact image before drawing stuff over it. What Oeming does, or Tony Harris, or a shitload of other artists is vastly different from stealing another commercial artist's work (in this case a photographer), dressing it up a little, and calling it yours.

Hawkstone

Not that my opinion counts for a ton more than anybody elses but I am a collegiately trained artist and took an ethics in art class...so here it goes. How plaigarism in art works as I understand it law wise is that you can borrow, steal, trace etc as needed to make a work as long as you can argue (and here is the huge frickin grey area) a significant creative departure from the initial piece. From what I see of Macks work if you take most any of these pictures as a single entity he would be guilty of plaigarism because you can clearly see the reference work (which isnt his) is to similar to the end result. Now the reason I say he is resoundingly not guilty is that the indivdual drawings are part of a much larger whole that is the comic book from cover to cover. In this case he is taking multiple images and re-arranging them to create a new narrative and something new creatively despite the individual pieces being lifted. Think of it as a very highbrow collage, a warholesque approach to comics or like sampling to make a song. Do I think he should be clear that this is his process for creating his art, undoubtedly. But I dont discredit the fact that what he creates as a whole work (that being the entire comic book) is not without artistic value and since there is no royalty law for comics the law wouldnt either.

KVW

I like Mack as much as the next guy and I don't like lumping him in with guys like Greg Land for the ol' tracing / plagerism category, but the entire issue was one big cut and paste affair. I could have "drawn" this issue of New Avengers based on how much he stole from other artists. There was no "referencing" done here. He traced the images and changed a few lines for different clothing or opened a hand or closed a mouth. That is not what original work is called. It's stealing and he deserves just about everything he gets for trying to pull something like this off. It doesn't end with his cover swipe. Check out these images from the entire issue.

Most are from the same issue of Gen 13. He didn't even try to find other's to "reference".

Fedora

This is...ugh, oh my god. Scumbag worthy, really.

Photo referencing is one thing, completely tracing an image with little to no changes from the original and then claiming it as original or as some sort of "homage" reeks of a complete lack of integrity.

And jesus christ, from what I can tell he completely copy/pasted an Adam Hughes comic, completely. There were more panels lightboxed then not. He got paid for that, he received monetary compensation from deliberately stealing someone else's work and then claiming it as his own.

And then he has the audacity, when caught mind you, to claim it as a "homage".

From the examples given it's obvious the only amount of effort he spent on the book was cropping the images stolen to fit various frames.

Think about it like this. Adam Hughes spent time establishing the panel layouts, creating a fluid movement between panels, first using roughs and then more detailed drawings. Then he most likely set up models, took his own photo reference, researched other reference elements (backgrounds, objects, etc) and created established drawings from those. In his own unique style. He then got paid for this time and effort.

David Mack, simply copied the finished product that Hughes did, something that most definitely took less time and effort, and also got paid for it.

wwtMask

Damn, that's pretty blatant. Like, Greg Land would look at it and go "man, what's with all the tracing?" I think I could've produced this issue if all it required was tracing some else's work.