Painting of Tica by Dru Blair

[danielh68]

Personally, I don't like photo-realism, but that's just my preference (art in the eye of the beholder).

However, I do see where Lunatique is coming from in regards to CGTalk. It would be really hard to measure the authenticity of the photo-realistic piece. Do we really want a front page piece to turn in an endless "is this real" debate? Do we have to request snapshots to prove it isn't just a paint-over or photo manipulation? In short, Photo-realism operates by a different set of rules than most other styles.

For example: someone can view a work by Monet to Frazetta to Nerdrum, regardless of the genre, they're first response isn't "is that real"? It's generally something far different.

To the contrary, when someone views a photo-realistic piece, the first question is "is that real"? Afterwards, there's some sort of detective work the viewer most do, from scrutinizing the canvas to reading a leafet about the artist's technique.

I'm not saying one is better or worse from a broad point of view. However, photo-realism is just a different animal to deal with, which would make it difficult for CGTalk to manage.

[PSR]

To the contrary, when someone views a photo-realistic piece, the first question is "is that real"? Afterwards, there's some sort of detective work the viewer most do, from scrutinizing the canvas to reading a leafet about the artist's technique.

This is not necessarily right. True. Photorealistic works, when reproduced photographically, can often appear indistinguishable to actual photographs. However viewed first hand it's unlikely that such a mistake could be made. The Media, canvas, paint, and often the sheer scale of the work. Gives the game away, but highlights the issue at the same time.

It is not the aim of most artists who practise photo-realism, to to try and dupe you into believing that their work is a photograph. It's rather to help us confront the way we perceive reality.

For example in your post you say that, someone viewing paintings doesn't think, "is that real" where as they might when viewing photorealistic works. You could extend that to actual photographs as well.

This is important stuff. Culturally we are conditioned to accept photographic evidence as absolute fact. As though a photograph of a thing, is as good as the thing itself. This makes us all vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

Of course, photographs are real, they are real photographs. In the same way that paintings are real.

I know that you said, you don't like photo-realism, but, may I offer you this link to some work by Chuck Close: http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/close_chuck.html

If you have time, please take a look, I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

[danielh68]

Thanks for your response.

Actually, I've seen some of Chuck Close's work exhibited at the Reno Museum of Art. And, yes, his art is different. I stand corrected. However, I have seen scores of photo-realist art that replicates a photo near and far. And the surrounding conversation has always been "is it real"? or "it looks so real". This sort of talk baffles me, in regards, to benchmarking art strictly against it's ability to appear "photographic". In the end, it's just not the type of painting I enjoy.

[noisewar]

Then daniel I suggest that it's CGTalk's policy to get WIP to verify work is real, rather than make sweeping preferences of style and artistic prejudice. This site is known as "CG" Talk, I wasn't under the impression that "CG" meant only the impressionistic or abstract usage of the medium.

[danielh68]

My personal preference and CGTalk's Policy are unrelated. I was merely conjecturing upon Lunatique's last post as why they would reject such pieces. I stated my possible reasons...and they could be totally wrong...or they could be right. I don't know.

[noisewar]

My personal preference and CGTalk's Policy are unrelated. I was merely conjecturing upon Lunatique's last post as why they would reject such pieces. I stated my possible reasons...and they could be totally wrong...or they could be right. I don't know.

Right, wasn't attacking you. I just find it ridiculous that people are using this guy's work as a chance to get on the soapbox and tell us what is or isn't art. He states clearly that it was based on photographs, that rather than a masterpiece this was a painting exercise, and probably wasn't meant to be the Last Supper. It just looks like some people took offense that too many people liked it on its craftsmanship alone. That's a shame.

[Lunatique]

Maybe CGTalk shouldn't. Eye of the beholder, arrogance is blinding.


If this was a traditional art website, then you could be right. But since it's all about digital works here, we get FAR too many submissions where people just filter photographs in Photoshop, paintover photos, or do some kind of artistic cloning in Painter/Photoshop and then call it their "painting." After dealing with countless submissions like that, we just all decided collectively to not accept blatant photo-rips anymore. This only applies to 2D, not 3D (unless someone just camera maps some photos to really basic geometry--like flat polygon planes).

[Anubis]

Just read this whole thread. I know it is old, but some people are missing the point. The image he claimed to have painted included chromatic abberation and CCD sensor blooming from a photograph that could only be noticed when scaling it much, much larger in photoshop.

No one really addressed this.

[JMcWilliams]

Just read this whole thread. I know it is old, but some people are missing the point. The image he claimed to have painted included chromatic abberation and CCD sensor blooming from a photograph that could only be noticed when scaling it much, much larger in photoshop.

No one really addressed this.
Would that not happen If you took a photograph of a painting?

[Anubis]

Would that not happen If you took a photograph of a painting?

No way, no way.. check it out guys, the abberations and CCD blooms happen because at the time the photo was taken, the earrings were reflecting light too brightly for the CCD to cope with and it makes a blue bloom. This is something the naked eye cannot see and is only noticable in the image when you scale it up a lot in an image editing app.

[John Keates]

No way, no way.. check it out guys, the abberations and CCD blooms happen because at the time the photo was taken, the earrings were reflecting light too brightly for the CCD to cope with and it makes a blue bloom. This is something the naked eye cannot see and is only noticable in the image when you scale it up a lot in an image editing app.

Yeah, I agree. You can see the CCD defects in the hair also. These effects would not come from taking a photo of the painting but are due to brighter than white light (overexposure).

This is in addition to the list that I made a while back.

Why has nobody addressed all these issues?

[Anubis]

Any thoughts?

http://chrisevans3d.com/temp/forums/tica.jpg

[airartiste]

Just read this whole thread. I know it is old, but some people are missing the point. The image he claimed to have painted included chromatic abberation and CCD sensor blooming from a photograph that could only be noticed when scaling it much, much larger in photoshop.

No one really addressed this.

Eight megapixel photograph, scaled about 200% in Photoshop, printed on an Epson 9600, then used for reference. Blooms and abberations were visible.

Things that can be seen can be painted.


Dru Blair

[airartiste]

Any thoughts?

http://chrisevans3d.com/temp/forums/tica.jpg

Don't forget that tuft of cloth near the armpit that mysteriously isn't there in the group shot.

Since we know for a fact that an artist cannot change or alter a painting, then we must presume some sort of devine intervention.

Dru Blair

[Ariel]

Dru had this to say about photography:

"The reason photography does not qualify
as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality."

I'm going to keep my opinion about this to myself. I'll let others comment on it.

I'll take your cue ;)

Photography is so much more of an artform than Dru Blair's sensless and cold copies. This is why: in photography (in good photography at least) you are designing a picture plane, in other words coming up with compositions that selectively and deliberately lead the eye around the elements in it. There is a choice of value partterns and areas of focus vs areas of rest. There are areas of noise and areas of contrast.. areas of strong saturation vs areas of little saturation. There are linear elements that guide the viewer and areas of contrast that make you ignore certain parts of the image.

These elements are true for paintings such as this one by Ashley Wood:

http://ashleywoodartist.com/img/gallery_images/19.jpg

....And are true for photos like this one by Julia Margaret Cameron:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/cameron/cameron_herschel.jpg

Above all, there is design involved (which is nothing more than a personal filter for what you see in order to arrange any given number of elements into something that has a visual or conceptual meaning).

In Dru Blair's 'photocopies' There is nowhere to look around. His figures are as badly iluminated as a mediocre shopping mall family picture. No strong lights, no shadows, no areas of softness and no areas of sharpness.. in other words everything looks the same against everything else. I would suggest listening to what Lunatique has said previously, and especially look at the images of Sargent, Lipking, Zorn, etc.. to really see the difference between what is good art and what is not.

History is the best filter for bad art and time will tell, in the end, that this Dru Blair is really just a skilled tecnician, nothing more. As has been said by others already, technical proficiency alone doesn not make an artist. I truly believe that an artist's taste makes all the difference in the decisions that he makes when creating a piece. When one copies bit by bit everything one sees, there is no decision involved..only mimicry (which is not what true masters like Sargent or Rembrandt did).

For some really interesting semi-photorealist work, check out the work of Ron Mueck, for example, who goes beyond being realistic and actually plays with people's perception of reality in an almost humorous way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/collective/dnaimages/030404/mueck2.jpg
http://www.jamescohan.com/getimage1210.jpg

[airartiste]

Photography is so much more of an artform than Dru Blair's sensless and cold copies. This is why: in photography (in good photography at least) you are designing a picture plane, in other words coming up with compositions that selectively and deliberately lead the eye around the elements in it. There is a choice of value partterns and areas of focus vs areas of rest. There are areas of noise and areas of contrast.. areas of strong saturation vs areas of little saturation.

Above all, there is design involved.

The same can be said for arranging furniture in a room. Would you consider that as much an art form as photography?


History is the best filter for bad art and time will tell, in the end, that this Dru Blair is really just a skilled tecnician, nothing more. As has been said by others already, technical proficiency alone doesn not make an artist. I truly believe that an artist's taste makes all the difference in the decisions that he makes when creating a piece. When one copies bit by bit everything one sees, there is no decision involved..only mimicry (which is not what true masters like Sargent or Rembrandt did).


I won't argue with you about how bad my art is. You are probably right. However, I think you may have neglected to read my post about purpose of the Tica painting. You may have also failed to note that my approach to painting is an interpretative process, not a "photocopy."


Dru Blair

[ashakarc]

I can't believe how rude and mean some comments are being thrown against the artist. This is unfair comparison between art produced by different artists through different times and for different reasons using different media of expression. If you don't like the process, or you don't acknowledge its merits, fine, this is your right to say so, but certainly not your right to call it senseless and cold..that would be an insult to most people. :blush: :hmm:

[noisewar]

I can't believe how rude and mean some comments are being thrown against the artist. This is unfair comparison between art produced by different artists through different times and for different reasons using different media of expression. If you don't like the process, or you don't acknowledge its merits, fine, this is your right to say so, but certainly not your right to call it senseless and cold..that would be an insult to most people. :blush: :hmm:

I think it's hilarious people attack Dru and then go whore themselves to a morally and creatively bankrupt Bollywood/gamesindustry. Or am I mistaken, they are all TRUE artists themselves? Couldn't tell with all the linkage to non-CGTalk work. I don't see where Dru claimed to be Michaelangelo, he was just running a class and that was the exercise. Its artistic merits aren't even relevant, but I guess you can't be photorealistic and mundane in this world, it's just corrupt even if you just paint what you like.

How is his work any different than any trompe l'oeil? In fact, I think it's downright humourous for him to have captured the CCD chromatic aberration, something he went out of his way to do. You don't think it's funny? Make sure you don't accidentally check it on in the Mental Ray rendering menu then. In my opinion, the real art Dru has done is thru the power of sheer realism made us question the artistic validity of realism itself. One great species of art is that of controversy.

How's this for a slavishly copied painting? This painting becomes art when someone tries to take it to the laundrymat.
http://users.senet.com.au/~rfrancis/murals/images/shirt.jpg

[Anubis]

I for one am glad Dru was here to answer, many, many forums online are full of people arguing about the legitimacy of this work, even on Snopes.com! I haven't seen him post any responses elsewhere. I hope his post was not solely in response to my prodding. I do believe people on this forum can be very rude at times, but all people can be rude at times, you just have to take it with a grain of salt.

I for one feel that you shouldn't criticize someones work (constructive aside). A lot of people on here criticize the art of others, and there is a lot of arrogance. Someone who creates artwork calling themselves an artist is akin to a priest calling themselves a saint.

However, as Dru said, some of the discrepencies can only really be attributed to "divine intervention".

He is an amazing and prolific artist, but when things don't match up, people shouldn't feel embarrassed to ask questions or investigate; however they should never be disrespectful. This reminds me of an anecdote:

Michelangelo and his brothers carted the Pieta to St. Peters at night in secret, where they left it on display. In the next days the town was brimming with artists from all over. Everyone wanted to know where the work came from. Some said it was made by the hand of god; others that it was an ancient greek sculpture that had been unearthed. Michelangelo told people it was his work, and no one believed him. So, the 23 year old artist snuck in at night and carved across Marys chest "Michelangelo Bounarotti made me". (lettering on the strap)

http://mulot.free.fr/art/13%20-%20pieta%20-%20Michel%20Ange.jpg

CE

[DrFx]

Boy, has this thread gotten out of proportion!
This whole discussion about "what is ART" is rather irrelevant. It all boils down to everyone's personal opinion, and my opinion is - there's nothing wrong with the Tica painting, it's an exercise in photorealism, exceptionally executed. For me, it just doesn't move me, nor does it communicate a message of any relevancy. The same could be said for Duchamp's coat hanger, Rothko's squares, Cindy Sherman's photos or country music, again IMHO, for ME!

If Dru decides to take his exceptional skills and do some "art" that's meant to move people, by all means he should, and I'd be very curious to see the result!

[DrFx]

So, the 23 year old artist snuck in at night and carved across Marys chest "Michelangelo Bounarotti made me". (lettering on the strap)
CE

Yes, you should always leave a watermark! Of course!:scream:

[mangual]

Well Dru, next time just videotape yourself making the portrait so that these snobs can then waste their time trying to say it was a fake video.

[MasonDoran]

well....i should imagine Dru has achieved exactly what he wanted....photorealism that is so perfect that people refuse to believe it is painted.


The misunderstanding is that people cannot see the artwork in person...where you can actually see the colored pencil and xacto knife work. Showing the image on the internet loses all of this authentic detail because it is drastically reduced.

And frankly...i am surprised people would find the arrogance in assuming they have the authority to label what is art and what is not. The art is found in achieving the image, not the image itself.

[jbo]

However, as Dru said, some of the discrepencies can only really be attributed to "divine intervention".

dru was being sarcastic.

[Ariel]

The same can be said for arranging furniture in a room. Would you consider that as much an art form as photography?

As a matter of fact your example is right on the money. That would be a good example of a very artistic approach to a very mundane thing. Arranging furniture in a room is in part, what many interior designers, set decorators, photographers, etc.. do, and they are artists in the eyes of many.

I won't argue with you about how bad my art is. You are probably right. However, I think you may have neglected to read my post about purpose of the Tica painting. You may have also failed to note that my approach to painting is an interpretative process, not a "photocopy."

My argument is not necessarily about your art being good or bad. On a technical level (if it was really painted...and we're giving you the benefit of the doubt here) it is unlike anything I've seen before..and it is really well executed. The difference is that I personally don't consider it art, even though it is that accurate. Like I said (and again this is my personal bias) I don't consider something art unless there is design involved (wether it is music, writing, photography, drawing, 3d modeling, painting, designing a living room or a film set, etc..). I am sorry to say this, but saying that photography isn't art says a lot about where you come from as an artist. Not all photography is art, but the medium can and has been used to create works of art. In fact, no one medium in itself is artistic.. but in the right hands anything can be used to create art.

Now, let me apologize if my previous comments have been too harsh. I realize that I should be a little more respectful and constructive when giving feedback about your work. I just wish that someone with your skill would use it in more creative ways. No matter what the purpose of the demo was, what many students might get from such a demonstration is that the final result of the Tica painting is an acceptable result (to some it might be.. I would personally just shoot a photo). Now, if your approach was more about being in control of the lighting, particularly, and the mood in her face, and selectively choosing to emphasize certain things while leaving others untouched or at least subdued, then your work could more easily touch an audience.

[mangual]

Ahhh will this thread ever end, heh.

[XLNT-3d]

maybe Jackdeth can post a perverted avatar and help close the thread.

[Jackdeth]

maybe Jackdeth can post a perverted avatar and help close the thread.

When have I ever done that?

[XLNT-3d]

I was just goofin'. However, I was referring to your "This thread sucks" animated gif. The one you used for that whole Star Wars thread about Volvos

[Lunatique]

Ok, I said I would keep this thread open so that people will have a sense of closure, and now that Dru had answered questions, the discussion is repeating the cirlce of "good and bad art" again. So, time to close this thread down.

In the end, there are things we'll never agree on, such as what is good or bad art? It's subjective, and will always be. For some people, technical skill/realistic rendering will always be the most treasured virtue of an artist, for others it's other virtues like storytelling, sense of design, expressiveness..etc. There are plenty of artists in the world that fall into either or both categories for us to enjoy.

I never once questioned whether Dru's Tica painting is really a painting or not--it simply was not a concern. I've seen plenty of photorealism paintings in my lifetime thus far to know that it's possible to fool the human eye into confusing a painting with a photograph. I'm personally far more interested in what the artist has to say with his art--be it the telling of stories, expressing emotions, what's dear to his heart, what fascinates him, or reflecting his thoughts about the world he lives in.

As a personal preference, I like painterly paintings. The selective detailing and the elegance of expressive brushstrokes is what I admire. Guys like Sargent, Zorn, Sorolla, Richard Schmid, Pino, Jeremy Lipking, Scott Burdick/Susan Lyon..etc floats my boat.

Whether photography is art is for you to decide on your own. I personally feel that it is, because I've seen plenty of photographs that are emotional, expressive, profound, heartbreaking, powerful, haunting..etc, and to me, that is what art at its best does--it makes you FEEL and makes you THINK. Anyone who has an intimate understanding of photography knows that you don't simply record reality--you have lots of tools you can use to alter reality--tools like lights, diffusers, reflectors, colored gels, barn doors, snoots, grids, fog, smoke, fans, water, oil..etc. Commercial photography at its best is just as complex as the craft of painting--the kind of tools and tricks used in advanced studio photography is mind-boggling.

So, to wrap this up--whether the painting is real, or whether photorealism is good art, is something you decide for yourself. If Dru wants to provide undeniable proof that the painting is real to satisfy your curiosity, he could do so by posting it at his website in the page where he displayed the Tica painting. If you have further questions you want to ask him about his techniques, email him personally.