PDA

View Full Version : Painting of Tica by Dru Blair


Pages : [1] 2

arvid
06-16-2005, 07:26 AM
I don't know if this is old news, but have a look at this... :surprised



http://www.drublair.com/workshops/tica.html

ntmonkey
06-16-2005, 07:37 AM
I'm in love. :love:

peace,

Lu

percydaman
06-16-2005, 02:05 PM
i just cant believe thats a painting sorry....

Alexandrite
06-16-2005, 02:20 PM
that is so a photograph..

arvid
06-16-2005, 02:23 PM
Well.. the guy teaches art-classes.. ;)

arvid
06-16-2005, 02:43 PM
I assume he's using a photo reference, though. He does airbrush paintings, mostly aircraft stuff for some reason, and teaches classes. Id say it's pretty amazing.

digitalshaman
06-16-2005, 02:45 PM
i'm sorry but that is not a painting

and if it is, why did he bother, its not an artistic interpretation with any style, its a complete copy - thus not art imho.

Alexandrite
06-16-2005, 02:49 PM
mmm, as for art, well imho Nature is the greatest artist of them all, and we could only strive all our lives to honour and imitate her... but, my issue is that i just don't believe that that isn't a photograph :P

if it IS a painting, well damn, that's amazing.

arvid
06-16-2005, 02:49 PM
Wouldn't you say he show an extreme technical talent? It's made during a workshop, possibly to showcase techniques. If you want original material, his site is jam packed with it.

percydaman
06-16-2005, 03:01 PM
there's just no was Im going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt with an image like that. I cant find a single brush stroke in the entire image.

arvid
06-16-2005, 03:03 PM
it's


A I R B R U S H

dmonk
06-16-2005, 03:07 PM
I could be absolutely wrong and I'll eat my words if proven otherwise, but I just don't buy it.

I would be very easy to "reverse" engineer the work in progress shot. The the larger image is just too perfect, to the point where can actually see hair folicles which could be done, but I'm just not buying it. Does anyone have any other samples of this guys work?

Edit:

His website:
http://www.drublair.com/

I hate to call something out like this, but I just don't buy it.

arvid
06-16-2005, 03:19 PM
He's mostly doing aircrafts and star trek stuff, but I guess the techniques are the same.

http://www.drublair.com/subcat.asp?0=233
http://www.drublair.com/subcat.asp?0=203
http://www.drublair.com/classescat.asp?0=242
http://www.drublair.com/productgroup.asp?0=203&1=&33=135
http://www.drublair.com/works141.html
http://www.drublair.com/workshops/buffer.html
http://images.google.com/images?complete=1&q=dru+blair&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

arvid
06-16-2005, 03:21 PM
and last but not least:

http://www.drublair.com/workshops/oct01class.html

http://www.drublair.com/workshops/images/classmar04m.jpg

http://www.drublair.com/workshops/images/class898b.jpg

http://www.drublair.com/workshops/education.htm#one

voodoofactory
06-16-2005, 03:27 PM
Hmm... Well, if it's for real, then I'd say awesome job! And according to the site it does seem like he's an acknowledged artist. Still, I'm having trouble believing this is an airbrush painting. There's just so much detail in there, the shapes are convincing and the lighting and colouring seems so realistic. I don't want to turn this into another "Is Killzone realtime or CG - thread", but:

- Doesn't this seem like an odd way to construct a painting. It looks like he paints it(or airbrusht it, whatever) piece by piece. He paints a small piece of the face and keeps adding details to it, while all other things are left white. For somebody who has been schooled in art, and I would presume painting, that's not a very common method, because it causes colour differations. However, I don't know too much about airbrushing, so....

- In the last photo, where the 3 guys or standing around the painting. Is it just me or does the painting actually look clearer/sharper/detailed than the actual people in the photo?

- Just had a look at a couple of other pictures on his website. None of them are very large, but you can see that they differ in quality. Some are better than others, but none of them show this sort of realism.



Btw. I hate wasting time trying to find out if something is real or not, but it's just so tempting.

MK2
06-16-2005, 03:27 PM
Whats the problem? He is just another Hyper-Realist. Go to an art-museum and keep an eye out for realistic and Hyper-realistic Painters.

arvid
06-16-2005, 03:31 PM
Perhaps there's some answers to this in his so called buffer theory:

http://www.drublair.com/workshops/buffer.html

dmonk
06-16-2005, 03:38 PM
I guess it's just something that I would have to see in person.

There is some really impressive stuff on his site, but this one is different. There are elements in this work that just seem way too precise. I've never even seen masters get so precise as far as hair strands and small pores on the face and I can't picture this guy cutting out a mask for every pore and strand of hair in under 80 hours.

I've seen tons of hyper real artists, but are you trying to say that this one doesn't raise a red flag in your head about being a real painting?

danielh68
06-16-2005, 03:47 PM
It looks rather suspicious to me. The progression captures look contrived, as though, it were reverse engineered.



However, if this is authentic, it's an impressive technical exercise.



In regards to artistic merit, I'm not a big fan of hyper-realism -- I just don't see any creative validation in mimicry.

Slurry
06-16-2005, 03:53 PM
It looks rather suspicious to me. The progression captures look contrived, as though, it were reverse engineered.



However, if this is authentic, it's an impressive technical exercise.



In regards to artistic merit, I'm not a big fan of hyper-realism -- I just don't see any creative validation in mimicry.

Quoted for agreement. I was thinking the same thing exactly.

Art

DrFx
06-16-2005, 04:21 PM
The picture those three guys are posing with, I can believe is a painting. The close-up with the skin pores - sorry, I just don't buy it! That level of detail, as said before, has got nothing to do with the rest of his artwork, it's a whole new level! Come on - lens aberrations?!? :eek:

Rens
06-16-2005, 05:12 PM
From the link:

Detail of final painting showing skin texture. Subtle nuances created by an xacto knife, an eraser, and some colored pencil can build convincing skin texture. The etcetera technique also helps the believability of the skin and hair texture. Fine hair is created using my shield-reveal technique, and my split frisket technique.

It's not all airbrushed. Personally I believe it can be done, even though this is so photorealistic it's absurd. It must've taken him a million years if it's really a painting.

percydaman
06-16-2005, 05:14 PM
From the link:



It's not all airbrushed. Personally I believe it can be done, even though this is so photorealistic it's absurd. It must've taken him a million years if it's really a painting.


thats the thing, on his site it said it took him 65-75 hours! IMO thats just way to short of a time to be believed. I would like to believe this is a painting...if he has said it took him a year and a half, I might believe it more easily.

INFINITE
06-16-2005, 05:24 PM
If its real, then WOWZER but it does look a little suspect, way too real. And the progress shots do look a little dodgy + he has no other portrait work on diplay at his site just aircraft etc?

but again I will eat my hat if it is real, would have really taken months than hours though. IMO

bobtronic
06-16-2005, 05:36 PM
I would say it's a painting, and a impressive one. IMO the skin around the mouth and eyebrows have a painted look, good to see in the big picture.

Bob

dmonk
06-16-2005, 05:39 PM
I would say it's a painting, and a impressive one. IMO the skin around the mouth and eyebrows have a painted look, good to see in the big picture.

Bob

I just don't see it.

http://www.drublair.com/workshops/images/ticastepwebbig.jpg

If he used the instrument and materials that he says that he used, why don't we see any hint of the slightest bit of texture? If this is a photgraph of the original why don't we see any slight color variation?

I looks like a hi res digital photo.

Mysterious X
06-16-2005, 06:04 PM
I hate to call something out like this, but I just don't buy it.

what if I make you a special discount ? :D

arvid
06-16-2005, 07:12 PM
Too bad he doesn't provide any more "proof" online... I can't say for a fact that it is what he says it is, but I haven't seen any signs of a hoax, apart from the apparent quality of the piece.

Rens
06-16-2005, 08:46 PM
Come on - lens aberrations?!? :eek:
I thought the same thing initially but this is a photograph of what's supposed to be a painting. You'd get most of the aberrations anyway. HOWEVER some aberrations will show up only on the real thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but check out this image.

Right earring:
http://www.rensheeren.com/images/cgtalk/ab_earringr.jpg

There is some chromatic aberration in the image (left earring (http://www.rensheeren.com/images/cgtalk/ab_earringl.jpg)) and it seems to suggest that the center of the image is either to the left or right of her head, outside of the large close-up. That seems to correspond with the last picture on that page, showing the center of the photograph to the right of her head.

But look at the above image. See the purple haze around the bright parts of the earring? Now, I don't see that anywhere else in the picture and that leaves only one possible cause I know of and that is sensor blooming. It occurs when you take a photo of a super-bright object with certain kinds of digital cameras.
The fact that it's only visible on the very bright parts of the right earring could tell you that this is indeed a photograph of a woman and not a photograph of a painting, as it would not show up on a painting.
Unless he took sensor blooming into account, as a true master of photo-realism could do.

Perhaps the image is the reference, not the result?

FloydBishop
06-16-2005, 09:03 PM
Maybe he doesn't spend time trying to prove it's a painting because he's too busy painting something else? I've seen some great and photo real airbrush stuff before.

A high quality airbrush in the hands of a master craftsman can make some of the most beautiful art ever seen. It's more than just cat's eyes, motorcycle helmets, and "true love 4 eva" license plates.

Why are there so many people quick to try and say this is a photo? Is it so unbelievable that someone is this talented? Come on people.

XLNT-3d
06-16-2005, 09:42 PM
go to the major airbrush forums and talk this. You'll get a whoppin'. He is considered one of the top dogs in the airbrush community. It would be the same as accusing one af the exteme talents here at CGTalk. I took a t-shirt airbrush class with Dru Blair back in 1991. He is the real deal. He started as a t-shirt artist. My class was one of the last while he was transitioning into illustration. His illustration of the B-1 screaming over the lake was actually used by the military for promo materials. They took it without his permission because they thought it was a photograph. He successfully sued the government and now he is one of the major artists doing military work. They even give him rides in AH-64s and fighter jets so he can gather great reference material(forget google). He can do the same on t-shirts too. I sent him a link to CGTalk about 2 years ago. Also, he mentioned going into 3d. I think he was looking into Lightwave.

So for all you non-believers, CG has jaded your belief in talent. I promise he is the real deal. If you think you can "Reverse-engineer" anything, then you are sadly mistaken

This is the largest airbrush forum;It is not as big as CGTalk, but airbrush artists don't hang out on computers all day either.
http://westcoastairbrush.com/

This is where he used to be found before they got hacked;
http://airbrushonline.com/

now someone here please go over the the WCA forum, register and then post his image and call him a fake. I need some excitement.

JeroenDStout
06-16-2005, 10:00 PM
It's incredibly real if it's indeed a painting, but he's got a bad tase in women :wise:

dmonk
06-16-2005, 10:11 PM
go to the major airbrush forums and talk this. You'll get a whoppin'. He is considered one of the top dogs in the airbrush community. It would be the same as accusing one af the exteme talents here at CGTalk. I took a t-shirt airbrush class with Dru Blair back in 1991. He is the real deal. He started as a t-shirt artist. My class was one of the last while he was transitioning into illustration. His illustration of the B-1 screaming over the lake was actually used by the military for promo materials. They took it without his permission because they thought it was a photograph. He successfully sued the government and now he is one of the major artists doing military work. They even give him rides in AH-64s and fighter jets so he can gather great reference material(forget google). He can do the same on t-shirts too. I sent him a link to CGTalk about 2 years ago. Also, he mentioned going into 3d. I think he was looking into Lightwave.

So for all you non-believers, CG has jaded your belief in talent. I promise he is the real deal. If you think you can "Reverse-engineer" anything, then you are sadly mistaken

This is the largest airbrush forum;It is not as big as CGTalk, but airbrush artists don't hang out on computers all day either.
http://westcoastairbrush.com/

This is where he used to be found before they got hacked;
http://airbrushonline.com/

now someone here please go over the the WCA forum, register and then post his image and call him a fake. I need some excitement.

Well, I'll eat my words. I'm still in disbelief at how perfect the image is. BTW the confusing part for me was there is a ton of stuff on his site that's just excellent this one just just seems too good to be true (especially the super large close up), when I looked at the close ups of the other images on the site you can still see a hint of airbrushing.

I've never seen anything this realistic ever, so it's hard to wrap my head around.

Is the super close-up image the reference pic or the actual painting?

XLNT-3d
06-16-2005, 10:20 PM
I am sure it is the actual painting. What would be the purpose in posting the reference image? Remember, it isn't all paint. He used an x-acto knife to roughing up abit and an electric erasure for highlights. I know the reasoning behind "You might as well use a photograph" and it is only a copy of a photograph, but the technical proficiency and technique are there. Hyper-realism was huge back in the late 70s early 80s. This is just example of that style. Personally, I've been wanting to put his paintings into motion as an animation. I always thought the "Deliverance" painting would be cool.

Marc-OlivierBouchard
06-16-2005, 10:50 PM
The guy on the left is too cool not to be airbrushed

Rens
06-16-2005, 11:13 PM
Oh, I believe he could have painted it, but he would have a damn good eye for detail is what I'm saying. If he even takes the subtlest of camera flaws like that into account and re-creates them realistically then he's my hero.

jmBoekestein
06-16-2005, 11:57 PM
Simply awesome...

tonich03
06-17-2005, 12:01 AM
Simply awesome...
scary too :eek:

Crazzy Legs
06-17-2005, 12:06 AM
The skin texture changes in an unrealistic fashion. Compare how smooth her lips are to her rough dry looking skin on the creases around her cheeks. Mind you, both look real, but unless someone is suffering from a dry skin condition (actually, like most people) but it would be rare to see such a contrast of moist skin and dry skin on a models shot.

percydaman
06-17-2005, 12:34 AM
take the greatest realist painter of all time and I still wouldn't believe him if he said he painted that unless I actually stood there and watched him. I dont know the guy, or even of him... and I have no doubt that hes the bees knees of airbrushing, but I just could never give someone the benefit of the doubt on an image we can see such detail.

If Im wrong, and hes sees this then I hope he takes it as a compliment.

Oh, if anyone knows of any other painting that is supposed to be so photoreal that its impossible to distinguish it from a photograph, then by all means post it here. Id like to see it.

otacon
06-17-2005, 01:39 AM
This guy does some amazing jet plane paintings. I remember seeing some a while back and until i saw this thread i forgot all about who did it. Based off my memory of those jet paintings i say its real.

XLNT-3d
06-17-2005, 01:43 AM
hes sees this then I hope he takes it as a compliment.


That probably is the highest compliment. Even in some forms of animation like visual effects, if the audience assumes it is real footage it would a compliment.

hinddee29
06-17-2005, 02:33 AM
Hello I know Dru's work well also. Here is another step by step.
http://www.drublair.com/workshops/alexstepxstep.html

I'll find a student of his that is able to teach his style as well. Back soon.

Shane

hinddee29
06-17-2005, 02:39 AM
Here is a picture done by a lovely lady. She does great airbrush work as well.
http://www.marissa-art.com/HOMEPAGE_E/show/realism/leftbehind_430

Shane

Lunatique
06-17-2005, 05:29 AM
Ahh, the ever-snubbed bastard child of commercial illustration/arts & craft. Airbrush has long been hated by "real" artists. Now, with digital tools like Photoshop and advanced printing of large sizes, airbrush is becoming something that's pretty much limited to decorating the sides of cars and other vehicles. As far as T-shirts go, most people I know wouldn't be caught dead wearing an airbrush T-shirt.

The problem with airbrushed works is that if it isn't intricate/realistic enough, it'll look plastic and sterile, lacking any "painterly" quality that people treasure in paintings. But, if it looks too intricate and realistic, it'll just look like a photograph, and then you'd wonder why anyone would want to reproduce a photo in the first place. I've tried airbrush as a teenager, and I hated dealing with the friskets, and the mess that it makes (you get paint mist everywhere, have to wear a mask, and must surround your workspace completely with some kind of barrier--in my case, using cardboards). But the real reason I lost interest in airbrush right away was that I realized no matter how intricate the work you produce is, they will never contain that wonderful "painterly" quality I admired in non-airbrushed works. To this day, there isn't one single airbrushed piece I could remember making enough of an impression on me for me to care about who the artist was, and I've seen enough of airbrushed works in the last 20+ years both in print and in person (my mom used to attend arts & craft street shows as a vendor--and we'd have to help out every weekend, for almost 10 years). Anyway, this is just my personal feeling about airbrush.

XLNT-3d
06-17-2005, 06:09 AM
Anyway, this is just my personal feeling about airbrush.

I think if you isolate any tool, you can come to the same realization. Many illustrators use an airbrush as a tool in an arsenal of colored pencils, pens and brushes. I think the straight airbrushing came into play because that was the fastest and "coolest" way to paint shirts and autos. The same thing could be said about 3d artist. However, an illustrator or artist might make use of 3d as a tool incorporated with 2d digital paint. Many people do not like "3d" art because it looks too fake or slick.

INFINITE
06-17-2005, 07:09 AM
Hello I know Dru's work well also. Here is another step by step.
http://www.drublair.com/workshops/alexstepxstep.html

I'll find a student of his that is able to teach his style as well. Back soon.

Shane

Mmmmm interesting, strangly couldnt access larger images of the WIP http://www.drublair.com/workshops/images/alexstep3.jpg

again this is a great piece if real, back in the early 90's late 90's airbrush stuff was cool when viewed first hand but anything you see over the internet can easily be manipulated in PS, so they are all a little suspect....

arvid
06-17-2005, 09:51 AM
http://www.marissa-art.com/HOMEPAGE_E/show/realism/leftbehind_large.jpg



Great stuff :)

INFINITE
06-17-2005, 10:22 AM
ROFL!! If thats real, i wish i was that good man!! I would be a millionaire! amazing if so....

Airflow
06-17-2005, 12:20 PM
I remeber seeing dru's stuff in a magazine called Airbrush art and action, mid nineties, when I still had my huge compressor/devilbiss-aztec and aerograph airbrushes/frisket,liqutex/oils (yeah you can airbrush oils too)... ... and was doing photorealist illustration gas masks and air scrubbers....

I bought a paashe turbo of an artist who was using the money to buy a macintosh and pshop... so I kinda know where your coming from Lunatique, but at the same time I realised how much harder it was to do photorealism, were talking canvases the size of a livingroom wall in some cases..... so I give credid where credit is due, and when it comes to dru, if this guy swicthed over to 3d, Id say 95 percent of these posts would be praise.... its funny how hajime sorayama was always praised but this guy just gets doubting thomas's.... must be the fantasy element...
this guy was doing star trek voyager pics with paint when they still had a physical model of voyager for the series........ very talented dude, and the pic is painted btw.

Lunatique
06-17-2005, 01:11 PM
its funny how hajime sorayama was always praised but this guy just gets doubting thomas's.... must be the fantasy element...

There difference between Sorayama and this guy is that Sorayama's got an imagination, a sense of humor, and an artistic personality that can't be mistaken as anyone else. His works also don't look like slavishly copied replicas of photos--they look like artworks done by someone with a creative flair and a personal conviction.

percydaman
06-17-2005, 01:11 PM
http://www.marissa-art.com/HOMEPAGE_E/show/realism/leftbehind_large.jpg



Great stuff :)

nice image but far from photoreal. NONETHELESS, its close enough in many areas, that it might just be taking me towards thinking that other image is possible. :)

dbclemons
06-17-2005, 03:42 PM
It makes for interesting discussion dosen't it? For me the "why bother" is as relevant here as to paintings that are just stripes of color.

Look at paintings by Richard Estes or Robert Bechtle. I enjoy their works more since it involves the control of a paint brush, and the works are generally more intricate.

-David

MattClary
06-17-2005, 04:51 PM
Well, my gut reaction was "Bullsh*t" but after looking at his site, I think he is the real deal. One thing in particular sold me. I first saw the attached picture back in about 1988 when I was stationed at Dyess AFB TX, where I worked on the B1 bomber. My boss was an amateur photographer and was convinced this was a real picture. While it is quite good, everyone finally agreed it was not a photo, if nothing else it was just too perfect. I'm finally glad to know where this picture came from.


http://www.drublair.com/productgroup.asp?0=203&1=&33=38

FunkyCowie
06-17-2005, 06:19 PM
I think this is a painting because something doesn`t quite read correctly with her wrinkles around her eyes and skin texture around her cheek wrinkles

ashakarc
06-17-2005, 06:39 PM
It all depends on how you look at art and admire it. Airbrushing ultra-realistic images are no different from 3D computer visualization in terms of achievement, except one is assited by a mechanical tool, and the other by a computational one.

The artistic merits have been historically either driven by the theme it reside in combined with idealistic aesthetic rules, as in traditional classical paintings, or driven by the concept and novelty of aesthetic technique that reside in an experimental, rule breaker expression, as in most of the great works of Modernists.

The artistic merits of this "painting" does not go further than just a technical achievement wonder, and it is a wonder because of the incompetency of the rest of us to do the same.

Great topic

XLNT-3d
06-17-2005, 07:08 PM
does not go further than just a technical achievement wonder, and it is a wonder because of the incompetency of the rest of us to do the same.

nice. I gotta remember to use that one someday:applause:

nineinchneil
06-17-2005, 07:52 PM
i have no doubt in my mind that this is genuine. mainly because i've seen other painting in real life that are just as close to reality as this one. there was this 8 foot black and white portrait painting of a woman's face i saw in either the MOMA in new york or at the Museum of Art in philadelphia. not until i got about 6 inches away from the painting could i distinguish the brush strokes.

why are there so many threads recently claiming works to not be art? sure the artistic value here is prety bland, but you have to at least admire the fact that this is humanly possible.

dmonk
06-17-2005, 08:07 PM
why are there so many threads recently claiming works to not be art? sure the artistic value here is prety bland, but you have to at least admire the fact that this is humanly possible.

I don't think the thread was started with this intention. You yourself said you couldn't tell until you were about six inches away from the painting.

I never heard of Dru Blair until this thread, looking at the first time just made me think it was a fake. After so many stepping in and saying that they've actually seen the man do his thing, I had to gracefully retract my statement.

Like others have said, I hope he takes the it as a compliment that I am completely stupified at the amount of realism in his work.

Technically it's mind blowing, but logically if he's even getting the flaws created by the digital image, 70 hours of work could have been reduced to one click of a button (Not taking anything away from his work of course).

This image has become my obsession for the last 24 hours.

XLNT-3d
06-17-2005, 08:54 PM
Tis image has become my obseesion for the last 24 hours.

cruise on down to NC and take a class. I took mine at a seminar at the Meadowlands Hilton back in 1991 I believe. We were both skinnier back then. Because he started as a t-shirt artist, other illustrators and art directors gave him no respect. Once he put paint to illustration board, the game changed. Now it is the CG Community:banghead:


now i am waiting to see if any animations will be inspired from his paintings. I've been waiting to do a few like "Deliverance".
http://www.drublair.com/images/products/pr_del.jpg
you guys never gave hime credit for having the whole "clay render" effect in use way before everyone else.

XLNT-3d
06-17-2005, 08:56 PM
...or did he use VRay or Brazil for those top down icons?

arvid
06-17-2005, 09:27 PM
nice image but far from photoreal. NONETHELESS, its close enough in many areas, that it might just be taking me towards thinking that other image is possible. :)

Yes it looks a bit more painterly, but it's still a great piece :)

CyborgChicken
06-18-2005, 04:38 AM
If I was this guy I would do pictures of celebrities doing crazy stuff and sell them to tabloids for millions; D

aesir
06-18-2005, 05:11 AM
If I was this guy I would do pictures of celebrities doing crazy stuff and sell them to tabloids for millions; D

Yea but could he do something this photoreal without reference? I think not.

Lunatique
06-18-2005, 05:38 AM
It all depends on how you look at art and admire it. Airbrushing ultra-realistic images are no different from 3D computer visualization in terms of achievement, except one is assited by a mechanical tool, and the other by a computational one.


There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal. With 3D, you can design your own lighting, construct your own original designs, choose your own angles..etc. You can essentially create everything from scratch without ever looking at a photograph, and still be able to render a still image that's photorealisitic.

JMcWilliams
06-18-2005, 06:15 AM
There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal. With 3D, you can design your own lighting, construct your own original designs, choose your own angles..etc. You can essentially create everything from scratch without ever looking at a photograph, and still be able to render a still image that's photorealisitic.

Whats stopping anyone from doing that with an airbrush? you don't have to copy photographs, do you? :shrug:

Or does the airbrush god reign down a firestorm on yo azz if you don't? :arteest: :beer:

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 07:34 AM
There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal. With 3D, you can design your own lighting, construct your own original designs, choose your own angles..etc. You can essentially create everything from scratch without ever looking at a photograph, and still be able to render a still image that's photorealisitic.
No doubt from that point of view, it is very different. But from an end result view point, it depends on the artist. I remember an artist from back home who used airbrush on large canvas with subjects close to surrealism, some stunning art work, but it is surely rare to see that in art galleries. In the eighties, architectural illustrators did previsualization of buildings with their environments, the results were extremely photoreal !! By the way, I didn't like airbrush either, it lacks the organic nature of drawing and painting, closer to a manufacturing process like 3D ;] but I like 3D for its wide potential to experiment with form and space.

Stahlberg
06-18-2005, 10:22 AM
Whats stopping anyone from doing that with an airbrush? you don't have to copy photographs, do you?

Um... if you want it to have a chance in hell of looking anywhere near real... yeah.

edit: and now someone will post an example of an airbrushed image that couldn't have been photographed... so let me clarify.
An experienced artist, who has practised many times with photos, can learn to do simple things like buildings, with results ranging from crappy to pretty okay. But it will never be photoreal, defined as: able to fool me. :)
And when it comes to humans, well. As I said. No chance in hell, without photographs.

JMcWilliams
06-18-2005, 04:11 PM
Um... if you want it to have a chance in hell of looking anywhere near real... yeah.

edit: and now someone will post an example of an airbrushed image that couldn't have been photographed... so let me clarify.
An experienced artist, who has practised many times with photos, can learn to do simple things like buildings, with results ranging from crappy to pretty okay. But it will never be photoreal, defined as: able to fool me. :)
And when it comes to humans, well. As I said. No chance in hell, without photographs.

Ok.....if you just want to do some paintings with it, you know, not 100% photoreal.
I remember seeing a guy just sitting down and painting whatever he wanted.
I just don't think you can dismiss the medium out of hand. But I've never used an airbrush myself so it doesn't really matter to me in any case. :thumbsup: :beer:

nineinchneil
06-20-2005, 02:17 PM
stahlberg, lunatique: what do you guys think about this painting? do you believe it's real?

also, i've been scouring the net for similar pictures, but can't find any with that much detail, or with enough proof that it's not a photo. could someone post other examples, please? i'm trying to convince my girlfriend that hyper-realistic art can be done.

Lunatique
06-20-2005, 04:33 PM
stahlberg, lunatique: what do you guys think about this painting? do you believe it's real?


To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less if it's real or not. If it is, all it demonstrates is that someone's got a lot of patience, is highly skilled with an airbrush, and slavishly copies photos without any meaning, purpose, or creative vision. People like that I see more as craftsman, not artist. An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities.

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 05:22 PM
To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less if it's real or not. If it is, all it demonstrates is that someone's got a lot of patience, is highly skilled with an airbrush, and slavishly copies photos without any meaning, purpose, or creative vision. People like that I see more as craftsman, not artist. An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities.
Precisely, in architecture we call it Artisanship. They have great deal of patience, catching minute details, and able to copy it in an almost perfected way. They are necessary however to convey the artist or the designer's vision in large projects.

INFINITE
06-20-2005, 05:27 PM
To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less if it's real or not. If it is, all it demonstrates is that someone's got a lot of patience, is highly skilled with an airbrush, and slavishly copies photos without any meaning, purpose, or creative vision. People like that I see more as craftsman, not artist. An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities.

You mean like putting a pile of bricks in an empty room, and saying it is a metaphor for the struggle of humanity (for example)...

If this guy did indeed create this piece, he is a gifted 'artist' for sure.

Lunatique
06-20-2005, 05:47 PM
You mean like putting a pile of bricks in an empty room, and saying it is a metaphor for the struggle of humanity (for example)...

If this guy did indeed create this piece, he is a gifted 'artist' for sure.

Well, I'm not a fan of conceptual, abstract expressionism, or other similar modern art movements either. I understand the intellectual reasoning behind them, but they just don't appeal to me. I'm also not a fan of photorealism/hyper-realism, because I don't see the relevance of duplicating photographs exactly the same. What purpose does it serve? What does it mean other than being able to render at high polish? Is "wow, it looks like a photo" enough of fulfillment for an artist?

polywrangler
06-20-2005, 05:50 PM
If this is indeed a painting then the fault lies with the lousy unbelievable progression he shows, especially between steps 2 and 3. For instance it appears as though all the colors flow out of his airbrush simultaneously (sort of like the clone stamp tool). Most traditional artists I know work a single color layer as far to completion as possible just because remixing the exact color time and again is very challenging and time consuming. His technique also is confusing as he doesn't work from big shapes to small. He seems to actually work the reverse focusing his attention initially on the hair before the features that define a likeness of the model. And why trouble yourself with painting the lips in full detail before the surrounding area is complete, the masking job must have been a nightmare. it MAY be Real , but his online example doesn't bolster any faith in him. He could avert any skepticism by showing the critical 4-5 steps missing between step 2 and 3 instead of lavishing the attention on the more trivial finishing touches.

INFINITE
06-20-2005, 06:27 PM
Well, I'm not a fan of conceptual, abstract expressionism, or other similar modern art movements either. I understand the intellectual reasoning behind them, but they just don't appeal to me. I'm also not a fan of photorealism/hyper-realism, because I don't see the relevance of duplicating photographs exactly the same. What purpose does it serve? What does it mean other than being able to render at high polish? Is "wow, it looks like a photo" enough of fulfillment for an artist?


For me it is well worth it, if someone can replicate natural life and beauty that in itself is an art, because you can then carry that momentum further. I personally feel I need to be able to handle realism first, conquer that, then the sky is the limit ! !

nineinchneil
06-20-2005, 07:02 PM
the way i see it, it's a good start. but he shouldn't just stick to that. showing a mastery of realism is good, but to use that mastery to make the fantastic look real would really be something.

it's like the life-drawing classes we had to all do in art school. it's essential to get the form right, so that in other ideas, you could use your knowledge of the human body and apply it to various things. but if you stick to just perfecting the proportions of the human body, then you're not challenging yourself.

Lunatique
06-21-2005, 04:44 AM
For me it is well worth it, if someone can replicate natural life and beauty that in itself is an art, because you can then carry that momentum further. I personally feel I need to be able to handle realism first, conquer that, then the sky is the limit ! !

But there is a huge difference between being able to do realism working from life and slavishly copying photographs. The latter is just an exercise in meticulous rendering--it does not require anything more than rendering skill. It does not require your ability to judge the entire dynamic range of values and colors in real life, your ability for composition, your ability to deal with changing elements of lighting, movement..etc.

When I was around puberty, I used to think photorealism is the highest level of skill for an artist. I aimed to be able to do it, and by the time I was 14, I had done graphite drawings that were indistinguishable from photographs. But it was just rendering skill--I had no other qualities to demonstrate my worth as an artist. I didn't know squat about composition, my color knowledge was pathetic, my anatomy was shaky as hell, and photorealism was just a shortcut that made it seem like I was better than I really was.

I'm not sure why the ability to render something very detailed is such a respected skill. Maybe it's because most members here aren't traditional artists? If I posted this guy's work at a place like Cenini Forums, or any other art forums, not a lot of people will be impressed. What he does requires patience, a good eye for detail, and good eye-to-hand coordination--those qualities are some of the most basic skills that's required of an artist. Any artist worth his salt should be able to do it, but what makes a truly artist great are the skills and knowledge beyond those basic skills.

Not all artists working in realism deserves respect. There is huge difference between this guy and true masters like Steven Assael, Bouguereau..etc.

kraal
06-21-2005, 04:54 AM
Hmm... Well, if it's for real, then I'd say awesome job! And according to the site it does seem like he's an acknowledged artist. Still, I'm having trouble believing this is an airbrush painting. There's just so much detail in there, the shapes are convincing and the lighting and colouring seems so realistic. I don't want to turn this into another "Is Killzone realtime or CG - thread", but:

- Doesn't this seem like an odd way to construct a painting. It looks like he paints it(or airbrusht it, whatever) piece by piece. He paints a small piece of the face and keeps adding details to it, while all other things are left white. For somebody who has been schooled in art, and I would presume painting, that's not a very common method, because it causes colour differations. However, I don't know too much about airbrushing, so....

- In the last photo, where the 3 guys or standing around the painting. Is it just me or does the painting actually look clearer/sharper/detailed than the actual people in the photo?

- Just had a look at a couple of other pictures on his website. None of them are very large, but you can see that they differ in quality. Some are better than others, but none of them show this sort of realism.



Btw. I hate wasting time trying to find out if something is real or not, but it's just so tempting.

ok i have worked with dru blair and know him personally.... that method is very comon for airbrush art and all his work is painstakingly real .....

kraal
06-21-2005, 05:16 AM
But there is a huge difference between being able to do realism working from life and slavishly copying photographs. The latter is just an exercise in meticulous rendering--it does not require anything more than rendering skill. It does not require your ability to judge the entire dynamic range of values and colors in real life, your ability for composition, your ability to deal with changing elements of lighting, movement..etc.

When I was around puberty, I used to think photorealism is the highest level of skill for an artist. I aimed to be able to do it, and by the time I was 14, I had done graphite drawings that were indistinguishable from photographs. But it was just rendering skill--I had no other qualities to demonstrate my worth as an artist. I didn't know squat about composition, my color knowledge was pathetic, my anatomy was shaky as hell, and photorealism was just a shortcut that made it seem like I was better than I really was.

I'm not sure why the ability to render something very detailed is such a respected skill. Maybe it's because most members here aren't traditional artists? If I posted this guy's work at a place like Cenini Forums, or any other art forums, not a lot of people will be impressed. What he does requires patience, a good eye for detail, and good eye-to-hand coordination--those qualities are some of the most basic skills that's required of an artist. Any artist worth his salt should be able to do it, but what makes a truly artist great are the skills and knowledge beyond those basic skills.

Not all artists working in realism deserves respect. There is huge difference between this guy and true masters like Steven Assael, Bouguereau..etc.

I mean no disrespect with this responce but I am using your post to address an attitude that I see on this forum alot. Since we are lashing out on someone I personally know I can go into a little more detail about the arrogance in the CGTALK community.

'I'm not sure why the ability to render something very detailed is such a respected skill. '

Well seeing that that is what he gets paid to do that is what clients and customers ask for so he is able to deliver what a client wants to the highest degree of realizm that is a reason to be respected.

'Any artist worth his salt should be able to do it, but what makes a truly artist great are the skills and knowledge beyond those basic skills.'

basic skills? hmmm interesting but have you seen his other work or just commercial stuff from the dru blair studio. You refer to him as this guy just because you dont know him don't think that he isn't a well established publishished respected artist.

you claim that there are not many 'traditional' artist on this board will 'traditional' is just a term artist are artist and not to be judged or validated cause they are 'traditional' or not.

' There is huge difference between this guy and true masters like Steven Assael, Bouguereau..etc.'

ok now replace the words 'this guy' and put your name in the above sentance and see if the cap fits.

CaptainJackSparrow
06-21-2005, 07:39 AM
Wow, that sure looks real. Lunatique is right in a way,this kind of stuff is somewhat of a mechnanical process. I see people do this with bikes and stuff, they work on it for ages, sure it looks like a photo in the end but you kinda scratch your head and think, well what's the point, I mean you could just take a photo;)

Having said that, it does indeed look very photoreal. Wouldn't have picked it normally.

pogonip
06-21-2005, 09:02 AM
I simply floored if it is real . I agree it does not hold any artistic merit but technically it is flawless . Ive seen matte paintings that were compeltly photo realistic but never of a human being and certainly not at that resolution . I personally don't think even people considerd master painters could have painted something like that even if they did look at a photograph ....amazing

INFINITE
06-21-2005, 10:50 AM
[QUOTEI'm not sure why the ability to render something very detailed is such a respected skill. QUOTE]

Maybe becuase not many people can actually achieve it . . .

mushroomgod
06-21-2005, 12:04 PM
There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal.

no you dont.. I find that a pretty silly thing to say, not to mention a little ignorant.

If you want to copy a photo and make a image that looks like a photo then fine, But to say its not posible to create photorealism withougt photos (painted in any medium) is just stupid. Artist used to spend years on paintings back in the day to make somthing that looks as real as posible, why cant the same rule apply to airbrushing?

Also I wish that people would stop throwing the term "artists" around as if that what you have to be to be good at what you do, its very likly that this guy (and myself included) does not in anyway regard themselfs as artists...he (and I) make a living from making images from other peoples breefs, I am an illustrator and while Im doing somthing for somone else to somones breef I dont consider myself an artist. I worry somtimes about people opinionated views.

kraal, I agree with what you have said

SuperMax
06-21-2005, 12:53 PM
Great Thread and a great Discussion.

I myself are a Hyper-Realistic "art" fan. I love seeing human cameras in action. eg Bougerou

I think its easier being an "artist" than being a "Dru Blair".

Best thing about this thread is the names that people have mentioned that im collecting and looking at their works.

Also its great to finally put a name to all those great pictures you see floating around on the internet without a name and without an owner. Like that Helicopter image.

BTW, I reckon that 2nd image posted of that girl looks much harder to do that the first image of that women. I have no idea who air brushing works and what technigues are involved but that 2nd image is awesome. Nice bluring.

Herehear
06-21-2005, 01:23 PM
I think most of you didn't payed enough attention to his site.

check out his WIP's (http://www.drublair.com/page.asp?id=13)

this might clear some misunderstandings and suspicions...

XLNT-3d
06-21-2005, 01:30 PM
to have opinions and doubts about people's work is one thing, but I seriously doubt anyone in this thread or forum for that matter actually have the ability or extertise to define someone else as an artist or not or any of their work for that matter. Just because someone is highly skilled in a technical manner, but not an artsy fartsy does not make what they do any less of an art. Art defines many things. Sometimes art defines the skill and the creative talent that someone has in any field, whether it is painting, writing, carpentry or whatever.

An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities.
Are you saying this based on one image or did you evaluate his entire portfolio? Your work has a definite paintery style(or whatever description fits) and is definitely different from Dru Blair's style and of a high quality worth admiration. However, you seem pretty judgemental as if he doesn't deserve any more respect than any other artist. Your user title fits you well.

Pentagramma
06-21-2005, 01:44 PM
Not all artists working in realism deserves respect. There is huge difference between this guy and true masters like Steven Assael, Bouguereau..etc.

Ouch. Now, I think that was a little rude, and really uncalled for. Every artist deserves respect - actually, everyONE deserves it, don´t you think?

Stahlberg
06-21-2005, 02:33 PM
If you want to copy a photo and make a image that looks like a photo then fine, But to say its not posible to create photorealism withougt photos (painted in any medium) is just stupid. Artist used to spend years on paintings back in the day to make somthing that looks as real as posible, why cant the same rule apply to airbrushing?

Sorry, the usage of photo reference is much more widespread than many seem to think. Artists have always used whatever means available to the fullest extent possible, in order to pursue the elusive goal of total realism. First they used real live reference, including sketching, standins when the model got tired, measuring with rulers, drawing on a glass-pane in front of the motif and transferring it to the canvas... Then they used the camera obscura. Then, as soon as the daguerrotype was invented, they (including Bougerau and Zorn and Maxfield Parrish and many others) used projected photographs. Nearly all commercial illustrators working with airbrush, in the period following the invention of the airbrush and up until they converted to digital, used and still use big expensive projectors in this way. I've done it myself, for about 10 years. I know a bunch of guys in Sweden - erstwhile colleagues - who could do airbrush in this manner, well enough to fool me. BUT even though they are brilliant artists, of course only if they used a photo or photos. That's why most of them are also accomplished photographers; they learned to shoot their own reference. I have NEVER in my 20 year career seen anyone who can do that without any kind of reference, or at least a detailed sketch drawn from reference. Frank Frazetta is the only one who even comes close, but you could hardly call his amazing creations photoreal. :)

Lunatique
06-21-2005, 03:10 PM
Are you saying this based on one image or did you evaluate his entire portfolio? Your work has a definite paintery style(or whatever description fits) and is definitely different from Dru Blair's style and of a high quality worth admiration. However, you seem pretty judgemental as if he doesn't deserve any more respect than any other artist. Your user title fits you well.

It's a matter of taste and opinion. Look at Michael Bay's films. They are technically very well done in terms of cinematography, editing, sound, special effects..etc. But why is it that most film lovers hate him as a director?

Every single day, cgtalk members criticize anything from films to video games to TV shows..etc openly. Many times, the negative comments are far from being respectful or constructive. How am I any more judgemental than the entire cgtalk population? Because I constructively criticized a single creative person instead of a whole group of production crew? Is that fair? Why the double standard? Do you bring up the creative works of all the other cgtalk members when they criticize George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay..etc?

Ouch. Now, I think that was a little rude, and really uncalled for. Every artist deserves respect - actually, everyONE deserves it, don´t you think?

People don't think twice about criticizing or expressing negative opinions about a film they just watched, or musicians/bands that they don't like, or TV shows they can't stand. No one bats an eyelash in the endless streams of threads at cgtalk that criticize these things. But if the criticism is about a single person's work instead of a group, it's all of a sudden not ok?

Yes, I wasn't exactly being 100% diplomatic when I criticized Dru's work, but he's not a member at cgtalk, so I have no obligations to hold my personal opinions back (plus, I didn't say anything that wasn't constructive). People have criticized my works publically in the past, and they have a right to their opinions. The only time it's not ok is when you start making personal attacks about someone's character instead of constructively criticizing the work.

As far as EVERYONE deserving respect--that is ideally what the world should be like, but do you think most people respect Uwe Boll, OJ Simpson, Ashlee Simpson, Tara Reid, Paris Hilton..etc? For all we know, these names I just mentioned could be very loving and caring to their families, have a lot of compassion, are great people with good hearts, and every negative thing that's been said about them are absolutely unfair and untrue. Yet, because of their creative works or personal lives, they've lost the respect of a huge percentage of the population.

mushroomgod
06-21-2005, 03:39 PM
id say he deserves respect, and I think its just rude not to show respect, regardless if hes a cgtalk member or not. I also think its a real shame that somone who has intrests in so many creative fields has a very closed view on the world, to catogrise somone as artist or not an artist because of comments like this....

An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities.

...is just arrogant

DrFx
06-21-2005, 03:44 PM
I, for one, have more of a problem with his works gloryfying the american military machine, than some cheesy bride's portrait. Apart from the discussion about it being real or not, the term "pointless" does come to mind! But maybe it's just comissioned work, and God knows everybody has done pointless, non-artistic comissions!:deal:

JMcWilliams
06-21-2005, 03:46 PM
I, for one, have more of a problem with his works gloryfying the american military machine, than some cheesy bride's portrait. Apart from the discussion about it being real or not, the term "pointless" does come to mind! But maybe it's just comissioned work, and God knows everybody has done pointless, non-artistic comissions!:deal:

Some people like aircraft. :D

DrFx
06-21-2005, 03:47 PM
Mind you, there are beautiful aircraft out there, but the sheer quantity of works about it by Dru Blair borders on obsession! :eek:

slaughters
06-21-2005, 03:52 PM
Mind you, there are beautiful aircraft out there, but the sheer quantity of works about it by Dru Blair borders on obsession! :eek:Or a paycheck.

JMcWilliams
06-21-2005, 03:52 PM
Well, the airforce hire him to do a lot of promo paintings I think.
He's got a lot of star trek on there too, with all those ST book cover comissions.

DrFx
06-21-2005, 03:53 PM
Or a paycheck.

LoL!!! :deal::arteest:

Lunatique
06-21-2005, 04:09 PM
id say he deserves respect, and I think its just rude not to show respect, regardless if hes a cgtalk member or not. I also think its a real shame that somone who has intrests in so many creative fields has a very closed view on the world, to catogrise somone as artist or not an artist because of comments like this....

An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities.

...is just arrogant

Well, let's take a step back for a moment. Do you have your own personal ideals as to what makes a good musician? What about a good writer? What about a good film director? Now, how about a good artist? And if you voiced that ideal of yours, would it be fair if I called you arrogant for having some form of standard?

What about the majority of cgtalk members saying things like "I hate Star Wars, and George Lucas is a hack and a one-trick poney." or "Half-Life 2 sucks! The story is so stupid!" or "I don't like any of Pixar's films. They all have the same formula, with no innovation at all." or "I hate anime. I have no idea why anime is so popular"..etc? They must all be arrogant, because not only do they bash the creative work of others, they do it in a mean-spirited, harsh, and offensive manner--and far more rude than I've ever been.

Having an opinion is not arrogance. I don't force my opinions on others--I merely state them, and defend them when people attack my opinions. Arrogance is when you think you are better than everyone else, and show it in an offensive manner. I do NOT think I'm better than anyone else. In fact, it's a known fact that I have a low opinion of my own creative works, and have a lot of heroes I look up to.

ashakarc
06-21-2005, 04:34 PM
Feel free to use any:

No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.
Oscar Wilde

The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.
Aristotle
Great art picks up where nature ends.
Marc Chagall
Art produces ugly things which frequently become more beautiful with time. Fashion, on the other hand, produces beautiful things which always become ugly with time.
Jean Cocteau
There is always a heavy demand for fresh mediocrity. In every generation the least cultivated taste has the largest appetite.
Paul Gauguin A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.
Michelangelo If you do not breathe through writing, if you do not cry out in writing, or sing in writing, then don't write, because our culture has no use for it.
Anais Nin

mushroomgod
06-21-2005, 04:39 PM
ofcourse I have opinions on those things, but thats all they are....opinions.

Your comment to me sounds nothing like an opinion, it sounds like your trying to cotagorise people, and if they dont fall into your very clear vision of an artist then they are not artists....thats what I think is arrogant.

If I wrote that comment I would not have writen it in the way you have...I would have started with "in my opinion an artist is somone who....."

Stahlberg
06-21-2005, 06:20 PM
If I wrote that comment I would not have writen it in the way you have...I would have started with "in my opinion an artist is somone who....."

Cool, the 'holier than thou' game. This should be fun.
How much are you willing to bet that we couldn't find a similar comment from you somewhere in your past posts that does NOT start with "in my opinion..."? :)

kraal
06-21-2005, 06:41 PM
Every single day, cgtalk members criticize anything from films to video games to TV shows..etc openly. Many times, the negative comments are far from being respectful or constructive. How am I any more judgemental than the entire cgtalk population? Because I constructively criticized a single creative person instead of a whole group of production crew? Is that fair? Why the double standard? Do you bring up the creative works of all the other cgtalk members when they criticize George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay..etc?




Yes, I wasn't exactly being 100% diplomatic when I criticized Dru's work, but he's not a member at cgtalk, so I have no obligations to hold my personal opinions back (plus, I didn't say anything that wasn't constructive). People have criticized my works publically in the past, and they have a right to their opinions. The only time it's not ok is when you start making personal attacks about someone's character instead of constructively criticizing the work.



oh just because he is not a member you have the right to put him down? hmmmm I didnt know this was an elite secret society i was a memeber of.... but anyways you have insulted the whole community (atleast the airbrushers, the people who do portraits for fun and profit, people who work from photos, ect ) all by just no usint the simple words 'i think' instead you made everything you say sound as if it is fact a writting in stone. I know I maybe picking on your one post but I have seen it countless times that people new to art are completly bashed for trying to grow and for you to lash out at someone and not the work that was posted really got to me. Yo say that it was constructive and I dont even see where you discussed the actual art work.

Gord-MacDonald
06-21-2005, 06:42 PM
An airbrush is a tool. As we all know, tools don't make art artists do. Yes the airbrush is often associated with specific gendres of art. I think the danger is if we allow ourselves to develop preconceived notions about what can be done with it.

I don't think there is a better example of an artist who has used an airbrush, but at the service of a broader artistic vision, than American artist Chuck Close. This link will give you some idea of his work, but its the type of work that really requires that you see the original, to fully appreciate whats going on.

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/close_chuck.html
http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/index.html

Note - Chuck Close no longer uses an airbrush, due to paralysis caused by a blood clot in his spinal column. After much rehabilitation - he is doing remarkable artwork once again.

http://groups.msn.com/DavidBlaineMagicMan/dbsinfluences.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=23585&LastModified=4675405389806440674


Gord

kraal
06-21-2005, 06:44 PM
There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal. With 3D, you can design your own lighting, construct your own original designs, choose your own angles..etc. You can essentially create everything from scratch without ever looking at a photograph, and still be able to render a still image that's photorealisitic.

you can do that with airbrush too...and airbrush is just a tool

Lunatique
06-21-2005, 07:07 PM
kraal - I think you are blowing the things I said way out of proportion. According to your rational:

1) When cgtalk members say that they hated a certain movie, and that it sucked--in your way of thinking, they have insulted hundreds of people that worked on the films. I think you should go into all the recent threads of movies being bashed and reprimand everyone who ever bad-mouthed a film and the crew that worked on it. :D

2) Anyone who's ever said anything negative about anyone, should be reprimanded because they are not showing any respect. whether it's Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Ashlee Simpson, Geroge Lucas, Uwe Boll, Parish Hilton..etc, each and every one of them deserves respect from all of us, and if we say anything negative, we are bad, bad, bad, and should be spanked. The fact they are not cgtalk members shouldn't mean they deserve any less respect. :D

3) Using "IMO," or "IMHO," or "In my opinion" automatically gets people off the hook for expressing their honest opinions. If such clarifications are not used, people will automatically assume you are speaking for the entire universe instead of for yourself. :D

4) One is not allowed to have an opinion about an artistic style or movement. Anyone who does so is being bad, bad, bad. Don't like abstract impressionism? Better shut up and not say a thing. Don't like conceptual art? Keep it to yourself. Don't like photorealism? How dare you?! :D

And yes, I did gave ample constructive reasons for my opinions about his work.

kraal
06-21-2005, 07:29 PM
i appologize for lashing out on your post.
i appologize for definding an ARTIST i personally know
I appologize for thinking that I could not see anywhere whereyou critizied the art or artist constructivly

but most of all I appologize to my self for wasting time with forum threads i will no go back to reading just the news forum

jbo
06-21-2005, 07:29 PM
i think the biggest problem is not that he's just copying a photo, but that he's copying the cheesiest most cliche type of photo. It's pretty lame. Yes, he's got amazing technical skill, but that's ALL he has. the only thoughts i(and it seems most people) had when looking at this pic centered on if it was real or not, and about how he pulled it off. i didn't give any thoughts to the actual content of the piece. if you're gonna copy a photo, at least copy a good photo. being able to paint something that looks just like a shitty amateur photograph doesn't seem like a skill that's worth taking years to develop.

mushroomgod
06-21-2005, 07:52 PM
Cool, the 'holier than thou' game. This should be fun.
How much are you willing to bet that we couldn't find a similar comment from you somewhere in your past posts that does NOT start with "in my opinion..."? :)

You know what, ill bet you will have no problem finding a thread where I dont use those 3 exact words...words which I used as a example, not the three diffinative words to use when expressing an opinion.

Also, im pretty sure that if you do find me making blanket statments like the sort i have read in this thread thay will be quite old....probubly when I didnt know better

I think its comes down to personal regard and respect for other people, somthing it would apear to be lacking here.

like kraal, im off to the news forum

peaches
06-22-2005, 12:50 AM
well, it is a painting. just with way too much detail.

according to an artist photographer friend of mine, it must be a painting, because 'The way the light shines on the teeth isn't true to the lighting used in the reflection on the eyes.'

its awesome.

Lunatique
06-22-2005, 04:11 AM
I think its comes down to personal regard and respect for other people, somthing it would apear to be lacking here.


I think there's a double standard going on here. No one yet could tell me why it's ok to bad mouth films, their special effects crews, their directors, their writers, their animators, video games, their designers, their modellers, their animators..etc as much as possible, and no one thinks twice about it, but the moment I say I don't care for the work of one airbrush artist, I'm all of a sudden branded as an @$$hole. I did not make any personal attacks--I only gave my opinions about his work (and the associated style/movement), and that's it. Tell me that doesn't sound like some major hypocrasy. If anything, shouldn't people be more respectful and polite about the works of fellow CG artists working in the industry? I absolutely do not see that kind of civil politeness when people get into full-scale flamewars about Star Wars or Half-Life 2 or whatever latest CG work in the industry. What, the people who work on them have no feelings--just faceless, souless people, but this one airbrush artist is somehow more important?

What about all the people who's ever said they hate conceptual art or abstract expressionism, and that it's all a hoax and the people who make them are not artists? Are they not allowed to express that opinion? What about all the people who said they hate cell-shaded 3D works because it's pointless, ugly, and irrelevant? Are they not allowed to express that opinion? Opinions like those are expressed every single day here at cgtalk, yet I get singled out for saying I'm not a fan of airbrushed photorealism. PLEASE explain this double standard I'm seeing.

I have always tried to be honest and sincere, while being fair and constructive. I have strong opinions, but so does most creative people who are passionate. There is nothing wrong in expressing opinions with conviction or standing your ground in your dispositions, as long as you keep an open-mind to listen to alternate viewpoints. There had been plenty of times when alternat viewpoints opened my eyes to facts or ideas I never thought of, and thus changed the way I felt about something. But there are also times when I just happen to prefer one viewpoint because it matches my values and ideals best.

Anyway, I just personally am not a fan of airbrush or slavishly copying photos--no matter how much skill it requires or how hard it is to do. It is a personal opinion, and I don't see why I have to be crucified for expressing it. I understand why you guys defend him or his work, because if someone were to dismiss impressionistic realism/bravura/alla prima, I'd be defending it with all guns out too. We fight for what we believe in, and we stand our ground because we are passionate. That's how I like it. But I would never accuse someone of things he's not, simply because he expressed an honest opinion, or doesn't like what I like. What kind of a world would we be living in if we can't express our honest opinions with conviction? And what kind of a world would we be living in if we had no personal standards, ideals, and preferences?

kraal
06-22-2005, 05:15 AM
lunitique
first i would like to say that i dont respond to people that bash film makers ect....

plain and simple you said 'there is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal.'

which is not true look at the book 'hotair' for hundreds of illustrations not copying photos

you also said ' all it demonstrates is that someone's got a lot of patience, is highly skilled with an airbrush, and slavishly copies photos without any meaning, purpose, or creative vision. People like that I see more as craftsman, not artist. An artist is someone who's got something to say with his work--someone with a personal vision, profound ideas, stories to tell, meanings to convey, emotions to express, and has a unique way of interpreting things that captivates him in this world. This guy doesn't have any of those qualities'

again you do not know this person I DO. so what can you say about his artistic merit.... I can look at your website and also showed it to some people and say that there is no personal vision on your site i mean one of your prodominate paintings is from a clip in a magazine if i read corectly.... again that is just based on one photo and doesnt represent your talent (btw i really have nothing to say against your artistic talent cause you are even booked marked in my inspiration links)

i understand you dont like airbrush but is that really a reason to belittle anyone that uses an airbrush...

again I dont care what people say about george lucas or speilberg or even you lunitique because i dont know you .... but once you claim someone i personally know who has spent hours at a convention i personal help sponsor and we talked about art creatied sketches together has no talent and just 'copies photos, thats when i need to step up and say something. I am sorry you took offence to people lashing out at you comments... I sorta feel I may of started the ball rolling but you do have to look at you post and see that you are insulting something you just dont like, which has nothing to do with the calibur of the art. again i have much more to say on this subject but i end it here cause i will not bring your personal work into this arguement

'I wish I had a model or reference for this painting, but I couldn't find anything useful, and I certainly am not that muscular! Doing everytihng out of your head can be painful because you're never sure if you're painting things correctly.' who said this quote?

ashakarc
06-22-2005, 05:35 AM
Gentlemen, I am not defending anyone here, but I think this debate/quarrel is revolving around an issue, highly philosophical and historically been debated a lot. That is the originality of the work of art

The general consensus about high art is the originality of the concept, and/or theme, and/or technique, and/or tools, and may be more. I think the point was made quite clear by many so far including the 2 sides of this debate, and that is this work is highly rich in detail and in an insane way, that not many in this world can do that. It is a supreme skill in my opinion, of a real master artisan. Is there anything wrong with this? That doesn't take anything from the person who did it. The label "artist" is not a badge of honor to hang on someone's legacy. There are millions of artists in this world, but few could ever stand out as original artists. Is this work original? each one of us is entitled to his/her opinion based on our experiences and judgement. I think it is not!

lokki
06-22-2005, 05:53 AM
i think the biggest problem is not that he's just copying a photo, but that he's copying the cheesiest most cliche type of photo. It's pretty lame....being able to paint something that looks just like a shitty amateur photograph doesn't seem like a skill that's worth taking years to develop.

??? it's a standard studio portrait kind of image... many people want exactly that, and it's not just an amature photo style. The highlights aren't blown (except for the stones), the tones are even and smooth, lighting is appropriate. Sure, it may be formulaic, but it's not amature by any stretch.

Setting that aside for a moment, how do you figure any skill isn't worth developing? Many arguments in this thread seem to point out that "it's too good to be a painting", so why question the artist's choice of images to reproduce? If I recall correctly, a major aim of realism is to work the less-than-perfect aspects of an image or scene... rust on parts, dust, cracks, peeling paint, scars, the list goes on and on. Why, then, would he choose something that a person like yourself might consider perfect or interesting? Then the focus wouldn't be as much on the technique as the subject. It appears to me that the goal was the technique.

I'm sorry, but your attack doesn't really make any sense to me. However, that is your opinion, so I respect your view that it's not a worthwhile effort. I just don't agree with your argument.

Lunatique
06-22-2005, 06:02 AM
plain and simple you said 'there is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal.'

which is not true look at the book 'hotair' for hundreds of illustrations not copying photos

I was talking about the photorealism style, not other styles. I should've made that clear. Of course you can use airbrush to do any style you want, but because airbrush is limited to using compressed air that spits out fine mists, you are severely limited in terms of surface variation. You can splatter the airbrush, or embellish afterwards with colored pencil, frisket, glue, sand, sponge..etc or other mediums, but the general look of airbrush is quite sterile. That's just the limitation of the medium. And it is because of that airbrush has always had a bad reputation in the art world. Even when I was kid it already had a bad reputation.


again you do not know this person I DO. so what can you say about his artistic merit.... I can look at your website and also showed it to some people and say that there is no personal vision on your site i mean one of your prodominate paintings is from a clip in a magazine if i read corectly.... again that is just based on one photo and doesnt represent your talent (btw i really have nothing to say against your artistic talent cause you are even booked marked in my inspiration links)

That painting of mine you mentioned--my painting looks very different from the original. I never, ever, slavishly copy photographs--that's just not my idea of what good art is. You would also never mistaken my paintings as photographs, because they are meant to look like paintings, with brushstrokes and simplifications and stylizations and my interpretations. These are my personal artistic ideals, but they are also ideals shared by many painters out there. I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

And as far as personal vision--I'm a storyteller first and foremost. Most of my artworks are from stories of mine, whether from TV series I created, film screenplays I wrote, or novels I'm working on. Maybe to you that's not personal vision, but to me it is.


i understand you dont like airbrush but is that really a reason to belittle anyone that uses an airbrush...


You see it as belittling, I see it as just an opinion about the limitations of a tool. If you love airbrush and disagree, that's fine. Do you see every negative criticism as belittling?

you are insulting something you just dont like, which has nothing to do with the calibur of the art. again i have much more to say on this subject but i end it here cause i will not bring your personal work into this arguement


Where do you draw the distinction between criticism and insult? Are you sure you understand the difference?

'I wish I had a model or reference for this painting, but I couldn't find anything useful, and I certainly am not that muscular! Doing everytihng out of your head can be painful because you're never sure if you're painting things correctly.' who said this quote?


And your point is? There is nothing wrong with using references--majority of artists do. From Michelangelo to Velazquez to Sargent to Schmid, whether from life or from photos. even 3D artists need references for anatomy or for cars/vehicles/architecture. But slavishly copying photos is a whole different matter, and that is the precise point that's become the debate of this entire thread. If you look at an airbrushed piece, and unless someone told you that it's not a photograph, you'd think it was a photograph, and in fact, it looks EXACTLY like a photograph that it was copied from. Tell me, where is the artistic merit in that besides the technical skill and patience to do the rendering? Being a human copymachine/scanner/printer is not my idea of what being an artist is all about. Of course, you are free to disagree. Maybe you look up to him as a hero, so it's hard for you to take negative criticisms about his work, but you know what? We live and we learn and we get to see alternate viewpoints. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, that's just life. My personal heroes are the artists I have listed in the sticky thread "Artists We Love," and if you don't care for my personal heroes, I'm not going to accuse you of anything.

igorstshirts
06-22-2005, 06:19 AM
You are haaaaating on this guy so much right now!!!

Okay,
I've been a pro airbrush artist for almost fifteen years now... I do it every single day of my life... Sundays too... I'm fuc#ing SICK of it!

I'm by far not the best airbrusher but I make it work in an every day business scenerio. Here are a few old jobs before I continue...
http://www.igorstshirts.com/temp/yoda.jpg
And...
http://www.igorstshirts.com/temp/sebulba.jpg

I agree with you on this,
Most airbrush artists are hacks. They use projectors, stencils, frisk, trace... Whatever tool is needed to expedite the task and give the customer the best product in the shortest amount of time for a reasonable amount of money. Only because, airbrushing is/was geared towards commercial/technical illustration or the t-shirt industry to make money. It doesn't make sense to freehand a portrait of a family member from a stagnant photo for eighty bucks... PROJECTING or SCANNING is of course a faster and more economical way to finish a piece quick... Though hacky.
I can freehand pretty good with an airbrush too, though... This is partly due to developing a technique from using the other tracing methods.

However,
You go too far to discredit Dru and photorealism, calling it not art is absurd!!!... Sorry. If that's the case, then any drafting software (including 3D apps), that close curves or make perfect straight lines are not "artistic programs" either. "Hey, let me just keyframe my fill light to over here". Airbrushing always gets the booty end of the stick... "Relying too much on tools and not enough on artistic skills", they say. Well if that's the case, computers are
by far more "hacky" then any fine art medium... EVER!

If that is airbrushed on board, then that's the MOST photoreal portrait that I have ever seen in my life. He has an amazing technique to reproduce pores, make-up, fill light, hair, gloss... All that. It looks like parts are digital to me though... Hell, I'd say that's a photograph. The "matteness" of the makeup just looks too good but even if this was projected onto the board and stenciled to shit with an exacto and a photograph at his side... The technique is brilliant and not easy!

Oils by far exceed the airbrush as a respected artform but AIRBRUSHING is a fine art form DAMN IT!! Do I not tint my colors with black? Tone them with white? Shade them with gray? Subtle layering techniques, triad, tetrad color schemes? WTF? I've never understood the hate towards airbrush artists by the fine art community. One should know alot of mediums and grow one's "pallete" of tools and techniques and apply them to make the best piece of art they can...

And to say that those techniques can't be applied towards original non-photocopy works is just plain crazy. Sorry.

EDIT... You posted right before me and made some of my comments sound redundant. I would just like close by saying that all of the airbrush experience that I've gotten here in my shop has helped my computer illustration alot, so, the hate on the airbrush bumms me out a little.

Lunatique
06-22-2005, 06:42 AM
And...
http://www.igorstshirts.com/temp/sebulba.jpg


EDIT... You posted right before me and made some of my comments sound redundant. I would just like close by saying that all of the airbrush experience that I've gotten here in my shop has helped my computer illustration alot, so, the hate on the airbrush bumms me out a little.

Now, see, I dig that piece. It's got imagination and creativity, with nice stylization in depiction of values and colors and form. I'll take that over any photocopy stuff anyday.

I'm sorry that me not into airbrushed photorealism copied from photos bums you out. Just not my cup of tea that's all. Maybe from now on, I should just keep my opinions to myself. But, damn, it would be a boring world if we didn't express our opinions. I don't lie, cheat, steal, rob, or kill, and I'm generally a good person that tries hard to help others. But I sure the hell do have strong opinons though!

Okokok, maybe I was a bit harsh in my criticism of Dru's work. Dru & Dru's friends--if you are reading, sorry for the harsh criticism. Technical skill is something that's hard to come by, and it does require a lot of practice and talent to master. However, I stand my ground in terms of feeling artists should try creating artworks that goes beyond slavishly copying photographs though.
Can we group hug now? :love:

tayete
06-22-2005, 06:50 AM
i'm sorry but that is not a painting

and if it is, why did he bother, its not an artistic interpretation with any style, its a complete copy - thus not art imho.

I agree completely with you Shaman...

igorstshirts
06-22-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally Posted by digitalshaman
i'm sorry but that is not a painting

What if it is?


and if it is, why did he bother?

I think your first comment answers this question.:)

Hey Lunatique,
It's okay. I won't go into any deep depression or anything. :) I'm not that great of an airbrusher anyway... I am pretty fast though... And know how to make money with it.
And my little StarWars canvases can't touch that portrait of Dru's/

jbo
06-22-2005, 08:41 AM
??? it's a standard studio portrait kind of image... many people want exactly that, and it's not just an amature photo style. The highlights aren't blown (except for the stones), the tones are even and smooth, lighting is appropriate. Sure, it may be formulaic, but it's not amature by any stretch.

yes it's exactly the type of photo i would expect to see at a wedding or prom. no the highlights aren't blown out or anything, but that's a bout all it has going for it. there's probably a million photographers who make a living taking this kind of photo while, they wish wish they were doing something more creative. amatuer wasn't the right word, but it's the kind of photo i'd expect a photography student to do for cash while they pay their way through school.

like i said, the guy has amazing technical ability. but to me, it's a waste. his art, in my opinion is the most extreme example of high technical skill and low creativity that i've ever seen. what does this piece have going for it besides the technical? the source photo he's referencing doesn't even have anything going for it. at least the other piece of the little kid is from a photo that's somewhat more interesting, even if the technical skill isn't as good.

sorry, but i've seen more interesting stuff on school picture day, and i've seen more interesting paintings from school children. yes it's cool to look at for a second and wonder how he did it, but that's about it.

jbo
06-22-2005, 08:54 AM
again you do not know this person I DO. so what can you say about his artistic merit....

sorry, but that is just a ridiculous statement. nobody's saying the guy is a bad person. we just don't like his artwork. if anything the fact that you know him personally would make your opinion more biased than anyone else's. we've all seen the art in question, what the guy is like personally is irrelevant to his "artistic merit." If people can't handle hearing opinions about their art, than they shouldn't show it to anybody.

edit: also i'd like to just say that i dont' think that it isn't art. i would never say that. i just think it's bad art.

DrFx
06-22-2005, 10:39 AM
sorry, but that is just a ridiculous statement. nobody's saying the guy is a bad person. we just don't like his artwork. if anything the fact that you know him personally would make your opinion more biased than anyone else's. we've all seen the art in question, what the guy is like personally is irrelevant to his "artistic merit." If people can't handle hearing opinions about their art, than they shouldn't show it to anybody.

edit: also i'd like to just say that i dont' think that it isn't art. i would never say that. i just think it's bad art.

Everything you said!

I think we can draw a parallel between this guy and shredders in the guitar music world. Everybody looks down on them, even though what they do requires extreme commitment and skill, they train 12 hours a day, and can play faster, more in time and more complicatedly than anybody else! Why? Because, it's hollow, it's got no soul and it's absolutely f***ing boring!

And they may be absolutely great people, real nice (if they're not Yngwie Malmsteen), love their kids and recycle their trash, but artistically they just... suck!

arvid
06-22-2005, 11:55 AM
To those who think the painting is a waste of time/talent or whatever:

It was made during a workshop, probably to showcase airbrush techniques, every painting isn't made as pieces of art. Stuff you do while learning to become technically skilled, must not be art, art is what you do when you're able to use some sort of tool to freely express yourself. This is NOT what this painting is about. I'm sure his class wasn't a waste of time nor talent. There's more than one side to everything.

Just keep that in mind before you get all artsy. :arteest:

INFINITE
06-22-2005, 11:55 AM
Tell me, where is the artistic merit in that besides the technical skill and patience to do the rendering? Being a human copymachine/scanner/printer is not my idea of what being an artist is all about.



Again, because not every human being is a copymachine/scanner/printer, as you well know.

It takes years of practice and patience and not everyone is gifted enough to achieve such realistic results. In my mind it takes a great artist to achieve such amazing results as this guy, simply rendering cartoony images/anime or what ever is just a fallback from realism. IMO anyone can do that if trained in that field , just the same as realism or "human copymachine/scanner/printer" as you put it.:)

Lunatique
06-22-2005, 12:00 PM
Everything you said!

I think we can draw a parallel between this guy and shredders in the guitar music world. Everybody looks down on them, even though what they do requires extreme commitment and skill, they train 12 hours a day, and can play faster, more in time and more complicatedly than anybody else! Why? Because, it's hollow, it's got no soul and it's absolutely f***ing boring!

And they may be absolutely great people, real nice (if they're not Yngwie Malmsteen), love their kids and recycle their trash, but artistically they just... suck!

OMIGOD yes! That's an awesome analogy, and I couldn't agree more. My favorite guitarists are all guys that can play soulful melodies, creative and interesting phrasings, care about the actual tone, not just how fast/intricate/loud to play a passage.

arvid - that's a good point. If it was solely to demonstrate airbrush techniques, then it's a different story.

INFINITE - I personally feel that creativity, technical skill, and expressiveness are all important, and when I see works that only concentrate on one aspect, I feel like it's out of balance. When someone renders everything so tight, it has no room for imagination or personal artistic interpretation. The kind of paintings I like are stuff like these:

Lipking:
http://www.lipking.com/gallery/Gallery_Room_1/GirlCouch.jpg

http://www.lipking.com/gallery/portraits/Room1/tsehaie_24x18.jpg

Pino:
http://www.addisongallery.com/images/Item_Lg/MedBreeze_4x5copy.jpg

http://www.addisongallery.com/images/Item_Lg/FirstGlance.jpg

Sargent:
http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/lady_agnew.jpg

There is so much artistic interpretation and creative selectiveness in a great painting, not just copying photographs exactly the same, or rendering every single little detail. When you render every little detail, it's like a singer who sings every single note at exactly the same loudness, timbre..etc--it is monotonous, uncreative, and unexpressive. A singer should know when to sing softly, when to sing with passion, when to whisper with sadness..etc. Artists should do the same--IMO.

Clanger
06-22-2005, 12:04 PM
What's wrong with with a display of pure craftsmanship? I can admire the result of a cabinet maker producing reproduction furniture who has no input in the look of the piece.

I see this painting as no different than a model maker making an exact scale model of some famous aeroplane or whatever. The skill is what's on display not it's artistic merits and I don't tire at looking at this sort of skill.

SpeccySteve
06-22-2005, 12:25 PM
It was made during a workshop, probably to showcase airbrush techniques, every painting isn't made as pieces of art.

That's what I was thinking, he's teaching a "how to" workshop, it's a tech demo of what is possible.

INFINITE
06-22-2005, 12:35 PM
INFINITE - I personally feel that creativity, technical skill, and expressiveness are all important, and when I see works that only concentrate on one aspect, I feel like it's out of balance. When someone renders everything so tight, it has no room for imagination or personal artistic interpretation. The kind of paintings I like are stuff like these:



Dont get me wrong, I understand the points that you have been making and I agree with you on some things. Some of those paintings are beautiful ! ! I love those style's too, u have good taste. I just thought that your opinions on some other artists rendering techniques was abit harsh but I see your point. Each to there own I guess.

Prs-Phil
06-22-2005, 01:15 PM
I have to agree with Lunatique.

Don't get me wrong, to show pure craftmansship is nothing to hide or bad, BUT, if that is the only thing that I can do then it is absolutley worthless, empty and sad, literally a waist of time and that is what this man (in my opinion) does.

Damn If I practice a stupid game long enough I can master it perfectly, if I learn how to write extremely small letters I can fill a page with the information of 30.

Stuff like that in my eyes could make a betting show, or can make the people go "wow" but not in a way of "wow, great feeling, that image touches me" but more or less "wow, how did he do that" ... if it reaches that level it is worthless.

This thread is the best proof for this.

The only thing the people on his side are defending is the technique.
Come on, defend the feeling of this image, defend the creative spark behind it ... prove me (us) wrong.

Sorry I see it that strict and radical and that is not restricted to the area of airbrush but to all creative media. To everything that marks itself art or creative infact.

kraal
06-22-2005, 01:20 PM
ok i a completly done with this rant because it is obvious it will go no where when you realize that there is STILL nothing but generalizations uttered about an art form you dont like

'If you look at AN AIRBRUSHED piece, and unless someone told you that it's not a photograph, you'd think it was a photograph, and in fact, it looks EXACTLY like a photograph that it was copied from.'

yet i bet no one sees the generalization here .... off to go talk about politics to my mother that sounds more promising than us getting anywhere with this dibate

kraal
06-22-2005, 01:22 PM
I have to agree with Lunatique.

Don't get me wrong, to show pure craftmansship is nothing to hide or bad, BUT, if that is the only thing that I can do then it is absolutley worthless, empty and sad, literally a waist of time and that is what this man (in my opinion) does.

Damn If I practice a stupid game long enough I can master it perfectly, if I learn how to write extremely small letters I can fill a page with the information of 30.

Stuff like that in my eyes could make a betting show, or can make the people go "wow" but not in a way of "wow, great feeling, that image touches me" but more or less "wow, how did he do that" ... if it reaches that level it is worthless.

This thread is the best proof for this.

The only thing the people on his side are defending is the technique.
Come on, defend the feeling of this image, defend the creative spark behind it ... prove me (us) wrong.

Sorry I see it that strict and radical and that is not restricted to the area of airbrush but to all creative media. To everything that marks itself art or creative infact.

the person that pays for a portrait like that considers it art and that is all that matters in the long run

Prs-Phil
06-22-2005, 01:33 PM
alot of things are considered as art, and just because I pay for something and consider it as art it doesn't have to count on the long run.

My parents have a very good portait of our old dog hanging up at home (hehe YES :D), they consider that as art because it captured that good old dog very well but thoose are emotions that a picture evokes bound to memory and not the other way round.

Of course we have generalsations here, if we wouldn't we would reach a point of non definition where everything is right and wrong but that is missleading, then I could start discussing reality and taking it appart in the same way. Discussionprogress = 0

We have left the point of talking about "not liking airbrush" (at least I have) but moved on to a more "deeper" (if you wan't to see it that way) perception of art and the way we define it, using this piece of work esspecially to underline our positions.

Good luck haveing a political debate with your mom, I´d rather watch this thread.

SuperMax
06-22-2005, 02:14 PM
I guess the same argument would be about 2 singers singing exactly the same song the same way.


1 singer originally sings the song

2 years later another unknown singer comes in and sings the same song exactly the same way as the original.



Why? what was the 2nd singer trying to prove? if anything? Why not change the song around to suit his style? his voice? his generation?

Lunatique
06-22-2005, 02:37 PM
'If you look at AN AIRBRUSHED piece, and unless someone told you that it's not a photograph, you'd think it was a photograph, and in fact, it looks EXACTLY like a photograph that it was copied from.'

yet i bet no one sees the generalization here .... off to go talk about politics to my mother that sounds more promising than us getting anywhere with this dibate

Do you really think that people are so stupid and ignorant that they don't know airbrush can't be used for styles other than photorealism? We are talking about Dru's work on hand--and he uses AIRBRUSH to do PHOTOREALISTIC pieces.You can easily substitute AIRBRUSH with WATERCOLOR or OIL PAINTING, or CG PAINTING, or ACRYLIC PAINTING, in that sentence, and it'll still mean the same thing. Copying a photograph down to the last tiny detail is not much more than an exercise in technique no matter what medium you do it with--IMHO.

Herehear
06-22-2005, 03:43 PM
WHAT'S WRONG with you people, have you even checked this link >> Workflow (http://www.drublair.com/workslongbow.html)<<, before writing 1000 pages??!!

He starts with PENCIL DRAWING for extremly comercial and creativity restricted task, and even then puts something ARTISTIC in:

"There are two elements that are hidden in this painting: an animal (no, not the eagle), and the profile of an Apache Indian's face." source (http://www.drublair.com/productgroup.asp?0=203&1=&33=39)


Saying that he's not doing art is like saying matepainters are not either!

Prs-Phil
06-22-2005, 06:02 PM
what is wrong with you ??? what is so artistic about a technical pencildrawing.

We are talking about originality, creative sparks, feeling etc.

but your right ... A PENCIL DRAWING, I mean ... wow ... A PENCIL DRAWING before he start something COMMERCIAL ... man, why didn't I figure that out.

And I mean, the 2 hidden elements (if so, I´m to lazy to find these eastereggs), what is special and/or creative/original about that. I hide little things in my textures all the time, and he does it in his work.

but hey, I´ve got to try this pencildrawing thingy that you are talking about, must be the key I guess.

danielh68
06-22-2005, 06:41 PM
This argument seems to hobble from the female portrait to his "other works".

In regards to his 'other works' they are realistic but not perfect facsimiles of the subject. There's thought in composition, arrangement, color, etc. I'm not a big air-brush enthusiast, but within the context of "other works", I'd say this guy is an excellent artist.

In regards to the "female portrait", I tend to side with Lunatique’s argument. I fail to see any creative inspiration in the work. The whole creative process is stifled by the dictates of a photograph (light, color, composition). There's zero room for creativity...just technique and execution.

One could argue that the artist took a creative role in light, color and composition since he was the principle photographer. I'd counter, by claiming the actual photo has more artistic merit than the painting.

Personally, I'd rather have the photograph than the air-brushed facsimile -- in theory, only. Because, in all honesty, the photo looks like your standard suburban mall glamour shot.

JMcWilliams
06-22-2005, 06:56 PM
Regardless, his work still outshines the majority you see on this website. His other works are not photo 'paint overs'. I personally like quite a few of his other pieces.
I find it quite disapointing that for a forum dedicated to a medium that is often snubbed and belittled that we ourselves resort to the same thing for other mediums.

EDIT> but.... they are just opinions at the end of the day and we shouldn't all get worked up about it. After all, we all have strong opinions on art. Live and let live ;)

StealthPharaoh
06-22-2005, 11:56 PM
this is so lame that people try to say he's not an artist bla bla..
first of all just because someone can do photorealistic stuff doesn't mean they have no creativity..it's just what u assume

there's no creativity in this single artwork yeah but it wasn't meant to be..it's about skill and technique..which is a major part of being a good artist overall..we all need to improve our skills and techniques regardless how creative u are..and this guy shows that he got amazing skills..so coming and saying oh look there's no creativity it's just a freakin photo copy is kinda stupid and ignorant..

if i show u an impressionist or surreal painting don't complain about lack of realism..because it's not meant to be realistic..same thing here don't complain about the creativity part..talk about the skill and technique which is the goal of the painting..so what i'm saying is for it's purpose it's really amazing..

the whole point is that u people asume things..u asume he have no creativity and therefore he's not an artist..which is wrong..u don't know him or seen all his work..may be he used to do creative stuff before but now he's focusing on hyper-realism..talk about what u see and not about what u don't see

danielh68
06-23-2005, 12:38 AM
this is so lame, u people, stupid and ignorant, etc.

Despite your eloquent rebutal, I still stand by my previous post.

igorstshirts
06-23-2005, 01:40 AM
This is a pretty good read... for the most part. I love photoreal art like this. I liked Final Fantasy too though... So, there you go. Anything trying to be non-photoreal sort of has a little room for "mistakes" and therefore has a little disclaimer to it. Photoreal art is soooo scrutinized under a microscope, that, it's almost impossible to pull off in any medium. Look at the posts for realistic heads done in 3D apps, 100% of the time, there will be a post that reads, "close, but not photo-real". That's with using projection or image map methods from photo based textures and such, so...

It's just hard to do, that's all. I'm not saying Dru is Michaelangelo... But, can you imagine using that pic as a map for a head done in 3D? I mean, come on... It all works together, in the grand scheme of things.

Most photo-real works always have at least one or two parts that give it away pretty quick... This (supposed) piece has almost nothing to give it away... If that is airbrushed on board, I find it very impressive.

waiwilsonwai
06-24-2005, 06:56 PM
After reading many posts on this title. I want to write down my personal opinions:

I love Dru Blair work. Good artwork is good artwork. Doesnt matter which media he use, is a 2d or 3d. Airbrush is a very hard technique to master. I have friends who are airbrush artist, I paid highly respect to them. If Dru is not a good artist, why he has so many clients.

Try to contact some of the illustrators agencies in North America, and you will find out how difficult to get into the illustration industry. Its way more competitive than CG industry in my opinion.

Learn how to rendering realistic definitely is a skill. It takes years to master. There are lots of theories inside. I used to study a short period of time under Micheal John Angel, who was studied under late master Pietro Annigoni in Florence. (http://www.academyofrealistart.com/index.asp) Mr. Angel just teach his students how to render realistic and detail using pencil and charocal only in the first or second year before he taught you oil paint, many students thought this is pointless, but what they have is a solid foundation skills, to know the value and form, and learn how to see. Many of his advance students(which study with him more than couple years) win many awards in Portrait competition in North America. Mr Angel also show us the oil painting method that William Bouguereau use, and you will notice that how important to have the highly realistic rendering skills. If you dont have the skills, it will mess up your oil paintings.

We all can gain new knowledge from different forms or styles. We also can exchange the skills with each other. Many artist think animation is not really a form of art, but i dont think this way, I learn a lot from animators in school, when you see their life drawing, notice how good they can capture the gesture only using few strokes in only few seconds, and also their line quality.

Anyway, these are just my own opinions.

Jiokah
06-25-2005, 07:06 PM
MAN oh man...

I can't believe I just spent an hour reading all these posts...

In my opinion, if Dru finds contentment in the endless presuit of detail, and actually achieves that on a high level, then he must be a happy man. Although he's expressing skill, I think that's all he's expressing. He's completely copied something else, no self expression. I wouldn't call this art. But since he has expressed something (that being his ability in detail) and has done a good job of it, I wouldn't bash him because he's probably just as happy as someone who does make actual art.

BloodTaster
07-22-2005, 03:52 PM
:hmm:heheheh...sorry guys...but its not a paint...this is a photograf for sure
I hove no doubt...:shrug:

JMcWilliams
07-22-2005, 04:03 PM
:hmm:heheheh...sorry guys...but its not a paint...this is a photograf for sure
I hove no doubt...:shrug:

**Buzzer** wrong. :D

Leonardo Vega
07-22-2005, 04:43 PM
The negative is that it's not worth any money, because you can buy the photo for cheap and even then it's still more realistic. And I do have my doubts about it being a painting.

But it's wrong to belittle him. It's like me going to someone's work in the Finished Gallery and calling it crap or telling the painter he's no good. Maybe Dru was just sharpening his observational skills. It's like someone trying to sketch out a portrait and being criticized for making it too real lol :P

Unless you don't mind people in this forum degrading you as an artist, then don't do it to others. Always remember art is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen paint blobs selling for $$$ in galleries...

My two cents...

- Leo

catamount
07-23-2005, 07:01 PM
photo. u can see the folicles in the skin etc. impossible to recreate almost. the step by step looks like a pencil and eraser used on a photo. not buying.

rawgon
07-30-2005, 10:16 PM
its a painting. And one of the most brilliant ive ever seen in hyper realism field!
airbrush rocks!

ps- sorry for saying "its a painting", i never doubt it for a second, well maybe for half a second. really dont understand all your anger against such a great skill demonstration, we all should appreciate that.:eek:

ScottJohnson
07-31-2005, 03:34 AM
renderwhite, I believe the anger stems the school of thought that a good painting comes more from the thought of what drives the creation of the imagery, rather than the pure technical skill of creating an image. No one can dispute the technical skill put into the piece, but they can argue about the thought put into the piece (ie symbolism, narrative, etc.).

pushav
07-31-2005, 04:41 AM
This guy is just plain good period. his skill is masterful. Anywaay, I've seen people who can do the saame in photoshop. I dunno why people claim that he is not an artist when others on this forum want their works to be photoreal also. If that was the case, then tons of 3d artist who use photos to build aa 3d model in 3dsmmax and Maya whould not be considered artist or better yet a photographer who merges photos in photoshop.

People need to applaude his skill along with other artists whho possess high techincal skill.

EricUNSL
07-31-2005, 05:22 AM
Just about ten pages of hate. Haters, release the hate. Dru Blair is a sick man that likes to do amazing stuff with airbrush and other traditional tools. these type of arguements never end....

Peddy
07-31-2005, 07:40 AM
there's a whole many conclusions reached here, and i cant decide. ill say im skeptical. however, i believe, in theory, that anything can be painted. it wont be perfect, but we'd be unable to notice anyway. skin folicles? who says you cant paint them? there are hundreds of art techniches over a range of mediums that most of us havent even heard of. i say, let him paint skin folicles, because he can.

mangual
07-31-2005, 10:29 AM
This thread is disgusting. Live and let live. We all have our own paths on this Earth. Stop worrying so much about this guy's work. Wasted energy and not good for the soul.

Many of those same people criticizing his work for the realism, craftsmanship, etc would be praising the hell out of the same thing had it been done in 3D or CG. So instead of using an airbrush, should he have used a Wacom or 3DS max?

Wasn't it part of an exercise in a workshop? If there was a gnomon DVD showing how to model that same woman directly from photos down to every follicle and hair on Maya -- honestly think about the different reaction it would get.

So please drop the snobbery. Why must the artworld always have these presumptuous people throughout history? Get over yourselves.

frameless
07-31-2005, 11:11 AM
I first didn't believe it is painted but i took a closer look and i guess i have found two very, very small "errors" which make me belive its a painting. Not that I am worth to crit Dru Blair...anyway ^^:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4026/ticastepwebbig7os.th.jpg (http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ticastepwebbig7os.jpg)

1) The middle of the nose is a bit too sharp (better seen in the far shot)
2) The tearduct looks strange too me

And now, if its a photo...just ignore those "crits" :P

Harafnir
07-31-2005, 01:29 PM
I do not buy it.
Because he even painted the hint of a thin white beard on her chin and that is just plain mean...

John Keates
07-31-2005, 04:50 PM
I don't want to get into the whole "Is he an artist" bulshit but I will stick my neck out and say that it is a photo. I used to be obsessed with photorealism when I was a teen so I have had lots of experience at looking at this stuff. I used to airbrush and have seen Drus work before so I am not a stranger of what can be done with the tool.

I will try to give a detailed analysis by using logic rather than comments about what is and isn't possible:

1. The eyes are slightly out of focus whilst the nose is nice and sharp. This is a BIG no in portrait photography. If this man has the ability to replicate the transition in sharpness between the eyes and nose so perfectly then why did he use such a poor photo in the first place? It makes no sense. The amount of effort that has gone into making the image look a bit bad is very hard to justify.

2. In the intermediate steps, he has airbrused in the highlights as broud areas. (See the medium-size image where he states that he leaves the details till last). However, the final image has a lot of detail in the specular highlights. Therefore he would have had to paint over the highlights that he put in before (to make certain detail darker). This makes no sense. He says that he added detail with an eraser and coloured pencil but he would have no need for an eraser as this would lighten an area which is already as light as in the final image.

Also, he says that he leaves the detail of the hair till last but all that detail is there already.

3 Why does he not show a step by step of how he produced this detail? This would be the only challenging bit. I should think that I could produce the steps that he shows, but certainly not the final image. He says that there is a tutorial to come... we will see.

4. Peple have commented that they have found defects that make it not look like a photo. I see none. I would attribute the oddness of the skin to the fact that she is waring makup.

5. I have looked at the other images on his site and none of them look like photos to me. There is a whole different level of realism. The technique that he would have to use to achive such detail is obviously not one that he usually uses.

----------------------------------

I would suggest that those who can't see the difference in quality between this image and the others on his site have yet to develop their eye fully. There are images that I used to see as real which I am not fooled by at all now.

Now I have to explain why this artist has resorted to such trickery when he already has a reputation as one of the finest airbrush artists.

Maybe it is a test to see what he can make people belive?

Maybe he is being payed by manafacturers of airbrush equipment who are finding it hard to make sales when computers are about?

Maybe his own carrear is flagging and he wants to boost his reputation to see if he can extend it?

Maybe he has spent all his life trying to achieve such realism but never quite gets there. Perhaps he is now just living a fantasy?

Maybe the guy who made the website made a mistake and used the photos rather than the paintings that he was supposed to use?

All of the above?

None of the above?

Anyway... I speant too much time on this already. I would be interested to find out what this up and coming tutorial looks like.

PerfectBlue
07-31-2005, 06:37 PM
there's just no was Im going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt with an image like that. I cant find a single brush stroke in the entire image.
Yup. You're a fool if you believe he is a living xerox machine.

Ninjas
07-31-2005, 06:42 PM
I totally disagree with Lunatique about the worth of Airbrush art. Ever hear of H.R. Giger?

RO
07-31-2005, 09:24 PM
Edit#1 Doh I made clear error Lunatique is not a she but a he I will leave my undited version so people can laugh at me. :shrug:

I am pretty sure Lunatique did not mean airbrush art is all non art. She said that this looks like a photo and the degree of realism is not really intriguing. She also said somewhere that this can be said for many other mediums, even the most traditional ones like oils and pencil.




Realism is nice and dandy but what is the point of reaching this level of rendering. A lot of people have reached this level. I believe in the 70s a group of people who were doing high realism works never ended up being recognized just because of that reason, it had no real significance what so ever just realism and some of those same artist if told to make some anatomy from studies they would fail horribly. Sure it was impressive and interesting I guess the main point is does this evoke some type of feeling or has place in history of some kind. Looking back at the masters works you can see the high degree of knowledge by color usage and many other areas of art. When this uses very real shades and makes it look like a photo. The masters knew anatomy like very few in and out. Literally these people opened up bodies to see the muscle structure and everything. And even knowing the body in an out they still created forms that were from the inner stylizations of the time or what they studied to be an idealized form. Have you looked up close and seen the color usage by these artist?.. You see very small marks like deep reds or blues that have no significance what so ever if you’re seeing it up close but once you move back your eye blends it so it highlights that form from other areas, so it pops it out ever more. Highlights have been popped out lighting has been faked for impact. Not accurate but it was a choice an artist took to light areas were normally it would be consumed by shadow. Things like that are not seen in photography. And that is just talking about techniques for images that is not even talking about the significance of behind the works.



I do not see why people get insulted when people say it is not art. It might not be Art but it is very well done graphic design. People study graphic design and some graphic designers in the past have been on the boarder or have been called artists with time because of their own stylizations and deep knowledge of feeling and vise versa with artist also being recongnized as designers. I consider myself a graphic designer mostly, and most people here are graphic designers. Both are highly respectable and should be respected for what it is. Graphic designers tend to be more interested in selling an idea while artists are usually more self centered feelings or an expression of common feelings. (Chances are any expression or feeling that an artist feels will likely be felt by somebody else in the works done) It is two fields and should be considered like that. The line is thin from designers to artists since many times it can cross over easily and that is the most difficult distinction ever and honestly the answer to what art is and is not at the end is an opinion done with time. But from looking at the past you can see things that have been done before and not recognized as art. Still an opinion from dead or still alive Masters but it is hard to debate against the people who have been in our past and done those distinctions, even if at the end it is opinion it is an opinion I would have to agree with.



I do not agree with how Lunatique gave the opinion but she already recognized the error of that in one of her posts I belive.

insania
07-31-2005, 09:31 PM
I totally disagree with Lunatique about the worth of Airbrush art. Ever heard of H.R. Giger?

You absolutely can't compare Giger and Blair. These are two colliding worlds of art.
Giger never achieved hyper-realism, but with an important difference:
He never aimed for it.
The medium of airbrush did provide him the best results at what he wanted to do, and that's all. Well, these two artists share the same medium, but does this make them comparable? I think it doesn't. You also can't compare Picasso with Rubens, although both used oil colours.

But I agree with you about Roberts statements.
I took a look at Dru Blairs WIP shots, and I think he uses pretty unique techniques, combined
with an incredible eye for composition and understatement of light, shadow and value.
In fact, I'd expect far differentiated comments concerning this topic,
especially from professionals, such as Rob.

ins.

Ninjas
07-31-2005, 09:47 PM
To this day, there isn't one single airbrushed piece I could remember making enough of an impression on me for me to care about who the artist was, and I've seen enough of airbrushed works in the last 20+ years both in print and in person

Sorry, long thread and I should have posted the quote

mangual
08-01-2005, 01:31 AM
Desp#2/Rog said: "I am pretty sure Lunatique did not mean airbrush art is all non art. She aid that this looks like a photo and the degree of realism is not really intriguing. She also said somewhere that this can be said for many other mediums, even the most traditional ones like oils and pencil."


Hey Desp, just a quick correction for you -- I believe Lunatique is a man named Robert Chang. Don't be fooled by the pretty avatar.

RO
08-01-2005, 03:24 AM
woopsie sorry about that :) I do not know him personally so it was lame dumb mistake. To be honest I always thought he was a she... Ahh whatever now I know and knowing is half the battle.

XLNT-3d
08-01-2005, 03:47 AM
I see that we all got sucked into the April Fool's joke. If I remember correctly, this was part of an elaborate joke, meant for the airbrush community which has a better sense of humor. Boy did it make for a fun thread here though.

John Keates
08-01-2005, 03:45 PM
I see that we all got sucked into the April Fool's joke. If I remember correctly, this was part of an elaborate joke, meant for the airbrush community which has a better sense of humor. Boy did it make for a fun thread here though.

That was going to be one of my explanations for why he did it... but then I thought "Hey, April was ages ago". The man should be carefull about leaving it there for so long as it could damage his reputation. But then I guess it has given him some publicity.

Anyway. It is nice to know that my sense of intuition has been bolstered. I KNEW it was a photo.

John marches off, head in the air feeling smug as you like.

DrFx
08-01-2005, 04:18 PM
I see that we all got sucked into the April Fool's joke. If I remember correctly, this was part of an elaborate joke, meant for the airbrush community which has a better sense of humor. Boy did it make for a fun thread here though.

Ok, I'll take back my comments about Dru being a maniacal photo-rapist with no artistic depth (and no life)!:scream: I never quite bought it that this was a painting, the technical difference between this and his other works was too great, but then why would someone like him pretend it was a painting?

Where did you get the info that it was a joke, XLNT?

rawgon
08-01-2005, 08:12 PM
Painting is as much creating something from imagination or pure demonstration of skill, or both, the tools are just the output of an idea, good or bad. The thing is you like or not. dont get confused. and this phrase comes just right:

Leonardo da Vinci - "The supreme misfortune is when theory outstrips performance"

"pearls of wisdom" thread

XLNT-3d
08-02-2005, 03:50 AM
Where did you get the info that it was a joke, XLNT?

Allright, it was late last night/early morning and I was a little punchy. It seems a bit ridiculous to have so much debate over this painting, but I was thinking "What if?". So back as we were everyone. I say it is a rendering of a photo. :shrug:

Kirt
08-02-2005, 07:05 AM
Airbrushes are not only for t-shirts and Harley gas tanks. :D

George Petty (http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/petty.htm)
Alberto Vargas (http://www.sfae.com/artists/vargas/)
Peter Phillips (http://www.peterphillips.com/)
H.R. Giger (http://www.hrgiger.com/)


I'm sure I could find a few more, but those immediately come to mind.

The airbrush has it's own history in the art world. Take a look through magazines and popular advertizements of the 40's & 50's and you'll probably find more excellent examples of airbrushed "art". Yeah, it's a tool ... but there are many masters out there just like the ones that choose oils, conte or watercolors.

Oh ... forgot one. Disney's artists and animators on Fantasia used the airbrush quite extensively. :eek: :buttrock:

XLNT-3d
08-02-2005, 01:01 PM
Airbrushes are not only for t-shirts and Harley gas tanks. :D


Don't forget about fingernails, body art/tatoos, and cake decoration :thumbsup:

jasonjart
08-04-2005, 01:57 AM
I believe lighting. construct the design, choose the own angle can be applied to any kind of tool so there is not big difference.
I think airbrush is not bad at all. It depens how we use that.



There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal. With 3D, you can design your own lighting, construct your own original designs, choose your own angles..etc. You can essentially create everything from scratch without ever looking at a photograph, and still be able to render a still image that's photorealisitic.

igorstshirts
08-04-2005, 03:27 AM
Another good airbrush artist.

http://www.imagenetion.com/picsnovas/hajrobots1.htm

Edit/The art world focused attention on Sorayama´s brush painting technique (often mistaken for airbrush).
After reading the bio, it seems that most of Soroyama's work is mostly brush. I do have an old Airbrush Action magazine "step-by-step" where it shows him using an airbrush, maybe mostly final highlights on the chrome and such. Just another tool under the belt.

tevih
08-04-2005, 04:00 AM
There difference between Sorayama and this guy is that Sorayama's got an imagination, a sense of humor, and an artistic personality that can't be mistaken as anyone else. His works also don't look like slavishly copied replicas of photos--they look like artworks done by someone with a creative flair and a personal conviction.

Ouch! When can you ever see a photo like the painting below?! Can a B-1 ever get that close to the surface without crashing from the harsh drag?! The man obviously has insane attention to detail, and incorporating that detail into a believable yet impossible situation is amazing. Since he does work for the military, I'd say he does his job by making it look cool and inspiring to join the military.

Well, my gut reaction was "Bullsh*t" but after looking at his site, I think he is the real deal. One thing in particular sold me. I first saw the attached picture back in about 1988 when I was stationed at Dyess AFB TX, where I worked on the B1 bomber. My boss was an amateur photographer and was convinced this was a real picture. While it is quite good, everyone finally agreed it was not a photo, if nothing else it was just too perfect. I'm finally glad to know where this picture came from.


http://www.drublair.com/productgroup.asp?0=203&1=&33=38

Absolutely breathtaking. :buttrock:

Axiom Art
08-04-2005, 08:15 AM
Hi, I've read this forum for a while, and finally felt "inspired" to register and comment.

I'm curious about the passion which drives naysayers such as Lunatique. He reacts with an emotional response against photorealsim, claiming it isn't "Art," because it is a copy of a photograph. Since none of us here have seen the reference photo, how do we know how much is from Dru Blair's imagination, and how much is faithful to the photographic image?
At this link http://www.drublair.com/workshops/tica.html Dru talks about is views on photrealism and He goes into in-depth detail about how and why he painted this image.

I did a search on Dru Blair and found that his Tica painting has stirred up controversy even among airbrush artists: http://www.airbrush.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=66498&mpage=1 He responds as "airartiste." Another forum's debate http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/60/t/000950/p/1.html


One more thing, that Lunatique mentioned was that the airbrush is sterile. I have to say that most computer work is guilty of the same thing. Look at almost any "realistic" 3D rendering, and the dead giveaway is that it usually looks too sterile. If someone on this forum were able to create a cgi image as realistic as Dru's work, he or she would get nothing but praise from this group.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 02:02 AM
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.

Kirt
08-05-2005, 02:35 AM
"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 find that pretty funny actually. Looking through Dru's galleries I don't see anything that couldn't have been achieved through photography and a little bit of comp'ing in PS.

I get the feeling he's made a pretty dramatic statement about his own work as well.

Don't hate me Dru (or friends of Dru) ... it's just my opinion. :D

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 05:50 AM
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.

Lunatique, odd that you would keep your opinion to yourself after your earlier post proclaiming that photorealism is too "plastic, and sterile, lacking any painterly quality...etc" to be considered art. If you apply your same rules to photography, then you are agreeing with Dru that photography is not art.

He must be successful at some level of acheiveing the illusion of a photograph, otherwise we wouldn't be assuming that his work is just copied photography. On the other hand, if we can so easliy see the non-photographic elements of his other paintings, then they aren't really photorealistic, are they? And...if they are not photorealism, would they then qualify as "art"?

I find that pretty funny actually. Looking through Dru's galleries I don't see anything that couldn't have been achieved through photography and a little bit of comp'ing in PS.

I get the feeling he's made a pretty dramatic statement about his own work as well.


Again, without seeing his photo reference, how do we know what percentage of his work is photo derived, and what percentage is interpretive, or even invented out of his head? I agree that Dru is making a statement about his own work, but after reading through the other paragraphs, I think that his work must be more interpretive than we first thought. He even says that copying a photograph is pointless. He goes on to admit that "unconscious stylization" creeps into his work.

I'm not sure if "a little bit of comp'ing in PS" would do the trick. We all know how difficult it is to merge photographs of elements from different scenes with different lighting, color casts, etc, into one convincing image. Looking at the dates of some of his paintings, Dru was doing it before PS had layers (around 1994). The whole reason illustrators made a living before photoshop was their ability to create beleivable product images that looked better than the actual product. Creating elements of a product that doesn't exist would require some level of inventivness.

I think that the debate over the validity of photorealism stems from the attitude which led to this century's decline of art where accepted "high art" is that which is the most unique, such as a scuplture of the crucifixion created with pig entrails. It seems a shame that quality no longer matters.

There is a difference. With airbrush, you have to basically duplicate photos exactly in order for it to look photoreal. With 3D, you can design your own lighting, construct your own original designs, choose your own angles..etc. You can essentially create everything from scratch without ever looking at a photograph, and still be able to render a still image that's photorealisitic.

That's easy to say, but are you (or anyone here) capable of delivering Dru's level of Realism in 3D? (no offense) I've never seen anyone create a CG human as realistic as his Tica painting, even though a beleivable CG human seems to be the holy grail of the 3D world.

I also noted that Dru displays the Tica originals in his workshops. If the image on his site really is a hoax, wouldn't one of his airbrush students who has seen the original in person have exposed it by now on one of those airbrush forums?

Melissa
Softimage 3D
XSI

Kirt
08-05-2005, 05:58 AM
Axiom Art - I was just commenting on the lack of individual style in Dru's images on display in his gallery. He's specializing in realism and creating believable reproductions of real life objects (like photography). If he had some work that had "a style" or did more than produce photo-real things then I wouldn't have anything to chuckle about.

I'm sure he has skills and talent, but the end result of the works I've seen aren't much different than if he were to take photos and comp them. Which is what I said ... in fewer words. :D

stepington
08-05-2005, 06:38 AM
"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."


What about choosing composition in a photo? Or the exposure? Or sharpness? I could never take those creative decisions as mere technical know how. And lets not get into mastering the dark room or the texture of paper one chooses. It seems to me that photography very much qualifies as an art. I don't think I could very easily make a "mechanical recording" like Steiglitz, or Adams with only the aid of a technical manual.

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 07:35 AM
Axiom Art - I'm a serious photographer, and I definitely consider photography an artform. A good photographer is a painter with light--he can create a reality that does not exist under normal conditions with the right tools (lights, lighting accesories, filters, lenses, sets, costumes, makeup, dry ice, smoke, wind machine, post-processing..etc).

I find it ironic that someone like Dru who relies so heavily on photographs for his own work would make such a statement--which means I agree with Kirt. I've seen haunting, profound, emotional, and expressive photographs that contain far more "art" than all of Dru's paintings combined--photographs that depicted the harsh realities of the human condition, the horrors of war, the heartbreak of losing loved ones, the joy of a rare happy moment captured in an instant..etc.

My feelings are stil the same as before--I like artists that do painterly work, and I like artists that have something personal to say, stories to tell, or a great imagination. This is a personal preference. Artists who don't have those qualities--I still think they are artists--but they are artists that don't interest me. We all have different tastes--this is mine.

And whether people think Dru's work is "art" or not is really irrelevant at this point, because it's obvious people can never agree on what is or isn't art. I suggest we spend more time working on our own paintings instead of worrying about someone else's.

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 07:48 AM
Axiom Art -

I'm sure he has skills and talent, but the end result of the works I've seen aren't much different than if he were to take photos and comp them. Which is what I said ... in fewer words. :D
I agree with you Kirt, except that comp'ing photographs is dependent on existing pictures. What if Dru is conjuring up parts of his painting from pure imagination? In other words, what if he is creating scenes out of his head that do not exist in this world to be photographed? Photoshop is a great image editor, but is awful at creating a realistic image from scratch.

What about choosing composition in a photo? Or the exposure? Or sharpness? I could never take those creative decisions as mere technical know how. And lets not get into mastering the dark room or the texture of paper one chooses. It seems to me that photography very much qualifies as an art. I don't think I could very easily make a "mechanical recording" like Steiglitz, or Adams with only the aid of a technical manual.
I'm still on the fence about whether photography is art, but I don't think that a decision-making process is what qualifies an activity as "art." There are just too many daily activities that require both technical and aesthetic skills, such as where to plant our shrubs in the yard, or what color eyeshadow looks best, and which brush to apply it with.

How about flower arranging? It also requires composition, aesthetic sensitivity, understanding of color harmony, as well as technical skill (to keep the flowers from wilting). A choice of vase must be made, with a size, texture, and color that will work best with the floral arrangment. Shall we call flower arranging and make up application "art" too?

I don 't think that we'll be seeing an art museum opening entitled "Explorations in Shrubbery Arrangements," but hey- stranger things have happened!

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

PS: SoftImage/XSI Guru Ed Harriss lists Dru's site as a production/software house. http://www.edharriss.com/html/link_places.html
I wonder if Dru created those little 3D clay airplane images himself?

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 07:57 AM
Photoshop is a great image editor, but is awful at creating a realistic image from scratch.


Guess you never heard of Craig Mullins or any of the matter painters working in the entertainment industry today?

Take a look:

http://www.goodbrush.com
http://www.dusso.com
http://henrik.cgcommunity.com

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 08:11 AM
I find it ironic that someone like Dru who relies so heavily on photographs for his own work would make such a statement.

Again, how do we know that he relies so heavily on photographs for his own work? I thought he was pretty clear about his distinction of his work from photography:

Art = filtered through the human mind.
Photography = mechanical recording

No offense, but I think you missed the line where he denounces the copying of photographs, which would indicate that that is not his process.

True, we all have different tastes, and I too prefer a more painterly approach, but it doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the imaginative juxtaposition of diverse elements he uses to create a fairly convincing illusion of reality in much of his work. I won't get into the level of visual skill required to work at that level. Sorry, I gotta give the man his props...

I'm in total agreement with you that artists will never agree on what defines art. It makes for an interesting discussion, though. ;)

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Kirt
08-05-2005, 08:28 AM
I agree with you Kirt, except that comp'ing photographs is dependent on existing pictures. What if Dru is conjuring up parts of his painting from pure imagination? In other words, what if he is creating scenes out of his head that do not exist in this world to be photographed?But, I think that he is creating images that do not exist in this world.

The B1 cruising over the water is probably an impossible feat to perform even with the most skilled pilot at the helm. What I'm saying is that the image (using the B1 image for example) could have been easily duplicated by obtaining a photo of the bomber (exists in the real world) and a lake (ditto) and then proceeding to put them together craftfully so that it provides the illusion of a real event.

Yeah, that's an original setting for the plane, but does it make it stylistic ... or just a careful composition of different realistic elements. I find it to be as boring as looking at the B1 in any other natural or fantastic setting. It's still a realistic photo-quality rendering of an airplane. Which (IMO) has as much style as if Dru were to be taking pictures.

Here ... maybe this will help illustrate how an artist's style can make otherwise boring subject matter more compelling to view. These are cars (about as interesting as airplanes) done for Road & Track magazine. Now, the point is that the cars are acurately illustrated but the cars are only an element of the whole painting. Color, composition, volume, line, etc. are used to push the realism into a style.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/0806200316562618.jpg
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/0806200316562703.jpg
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/0806200316562755.jpg
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/0806200316562823.jpg

I'd find more "art" in Dru's work if he were to try something like this with his paintings. Yeah, he's probably doing very well with his current techniques (and I'm not saying Dru isn't an artist). I just find it dull and the quote from Dru that Lunatique provided is just ... well funny.
Photoshop is a great image editor, but is awful at creating a realistic image from scratch.I'm going to have to disagree with you there ...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=125507
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=157382
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=200355
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=231684
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=170114
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=86888
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=251198

Just to name a few. :D

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 08:33 AM
Again, how do we know that he relies so heavily on photographs for his own work? I thought he was pretty clear about his distinction of his work from photography:

Art = filtered through the human mind.
Photography = mechanical recording

No offense, but I think you missed the line where he denounces the copying of photographs, which would indicate that that is not his process.


We know because any advanced artist who is skilled and experienced in traditional art can tell.

His Tica demo piece is MOST CERTAINLY copied from a photograph, down to the last detail, and if there's any "unconscious stylization," they are minor--in about the same ratio as what photographers do to clone, stamp, heal, transform or Liquify a photograph: Changing the shape/direction of hair strands, thinning/fattening parts of the body/face..etc. That kind of modification is not hard because the underlining values, colors, edges, textures are ALREADY ESTABLISHED--all you have to do it keep the modifications within that established range and mimic it. I will bet you my entire life's savings that if he was not allowed to use any photo references, he will NOT be able to do something like that Tica piece--not in a billion years. It is simply physically and mentally impossible, for any human being--be it the most talented masters in art history or not.

His other works are a combination of photo-references and out of his head, but make no mistake, there isn't one single piece in his entire portfolio that's 100% out of his head--he is NOT that kind of an artist (meaning artists who are trained to do work out of their head--concept artists, comic book artists, most sci-fi/fantasy illustrators..etc).

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 08:38 AM
Photoshop is a great image editor, but is awful at creating a realistic image from scratch.


Guess you never heard of Craig Mullins or any of the matter painters working in the entertainment industry today?

Take a look:

http://www.goodbrush.com (http://www.goodbrush.com/)
http://www.dusso.com (http://www.dusso.com/)
http://henrik.cgcommunity.com (http://henrik.cgcommunity.com/)

I am familiar with Mullins' fantastic work, but I did say realistic image created from scratch. Mullins generates the most realistic images of the artists you point out, but his realistic images are NOT created from scratch, but are manipulations in Photoshop. The images he does create from scratch are much less realistic (intentionally so, I'm sure).

Even the digital matte painters begin with a source from outside the PS program. My favorite piece by Mullins his digital over-painting of a scene to add snow: http://www.goodbrush.com/cm/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=81
There used to be a side by side comparison with his starting image, but I couldn't find it

However, my point is that it is extremely difficult to create a convincinly real image from scratch in Photoshop. I'm not saying that it cannot be done, it's just that there are other programs better suited.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 08:51 AM
I'd find more "art" in Dru's work if he were to try something like this with his paintings. Yeah, he's probably doing very well with his current techniques (and I'm not saying Dru isn't an artist). I just find it dull and the quote from Dru that Lunatique provided is just ... well funny.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there ...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=125507
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=157382
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=200355
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=231684
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=170114
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=86888
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=251198

Just to name a few. :D

Hi Kirt,

You make some good points about the impossibility of the B-1 over the lake. However, certain elements would have to be created that you couldn't photograph in the real world, such as that sonic shock wave, it's reflection, and the reflection of the plane in the water.

I appreciate the links you provided. Some truly great work. However......as good as it was, at no time was I even close to thinking it was photorealistic. The cat came the closest, but it failed around the mouth. ;)

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 08:55 AM
I am familiar with Mullins' fantastic work, but I did say realistic image created from scratch. Mullins generates the most realistic images of the artists you point out, but his realistic images are NOT created from scratch, but are manipulations in Photoshop. The images he does create from scratch are much less realistic (intentionally so, I'm sure).

Even the digital matte painters begin with a source from outside the PS program. My favorite piece by Mullins his digital over-painting of a scene to add snow: http://www.goodbrush.com/cm/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=81
There used to be a side by side comparison with his starting image, but I couldn't find it

However, my point is that it is extremely difficult to create a convincinly real image from scratch in Photoshop. I'm not saying that it cannot be done, it's just that there are other programs better suited.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

And you think airbrush artists generate realistic images from scratch?

The percentage of mattes that Craig used photos as base is very low--in fact he hasn't used that technique for a long time now, and prefers to paint everything by hand. That example you pointed out is from his early works in the industry. If you look at many of his other works (Final Fantasy for example), they are all painted by hand.

There is no such thing as "other programs better suited." Some of the best digital artists in the world use Photoshop as their default program of choice. There's absolutely no reason why any other software is "better suited," because all of them have more than enough tools for even the most detailed artwork.

I think you might be a little bit unclear about what "from scratch" means in the artistic process. If an artist starts from a blank canvas--that's from scratch. But this does not touch on whether there are photo references used.

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 09:05 AM
...I will bet you my entire life's savings that if he was not allowed to use any photo references, he will NOT be able to do something like that Tica piece--not in a billion years. It is simply physically and mentally impossible, for any human being--be it the most talented masters in art history or not.

LOL!! At the beginning of this thread, many people stated to the effect that it is simply physically and mentally impossible for any human being to create the Tica painting with photographic reference. ;)

Still- I wonder how much of that realism in his other works comes from out of his head, and how much is derived from photography? If I can find his direct email address, I might ask him.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 09:09 AM
Hi Kirt,

You make some good points about the impossibility of the B-1 over the lake. However, certain elements would have to be created that you couldn't photograph in the real world, such as that sonic shock wave, it's reflection, and the reflection of the plane in the water.

I appreciate the links you provided. Some truly great work. However......as good as it was, at no time was I even close to thinking it was photorealistic. The cat came the closest, but it failed around the mouth. ;)

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Guess why? Because none of the artists Kirt listed is aiming to fool anyone into thinking they are looking at a photograph--that was not why they became artists. I can assure you that those artists have the skill to do it if that's their goal. I can also assure you that it's far easier/efficient/powerful to create photorealistic art using digital tools than it is with an airbrush. But the question is, why would you want to? To impress the rubes?

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 09:18 AM
LOL!! At the beginning of this thread, many people stated to the effect that it is simply physically and mentally impossible for any human being to create the Tica painting with photographic reference. ;)

Still- I wonder how much of that realism in his other works comes from out of his head, and how much is derived from photography? If I can find his direct email address, I might ask him.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

And I never agreed either way. I simply said I didn't care whether he really painted it or not--because that's not what I value in a painting.

Any skilled and experienced artist should be able to tell which parts of his work are from photo references.

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 09:24 AM
And you think airbrush artists generate realistic images from scratch?

From what I read, it appears that they do, starting with a blank canvas, or illustration board

The percentage of mattes that Craig used photos as base is very low--in fact he hasn't used that technique for a long time now, and prefers to paint everything by hand. That example you pointed out is from his early works in the industry. If you look at many of his other works (Final Fantasy for example), they are all painted by hand.

Agreed. But still, I don't see convincing photorealism in any of his works that were not based on photographs digitized as a beginning source. His more recent work clearly departs from his realistic mattes in favor of a painterly style. He is a true explorer of multiple mediums

There is no such thing as "other programs better suited." Some of the best digital artists in the world use Photoshop as their default program of choice. There's absolutely no reason why any other software is "better suited," because all of them have more than enough tools for even the most detailed artwork .

I must disagree with you here, since 3D has some obvious advantages over 2D. Quick changes in lighting direction and Camera POV, for example. 3D also more readily generates perspective solutions.

I think you might be a little bit unclear about what "from scratch" means in the artistic process. If an artist starts from a blank canvas--that's from scratch. But this does not touch on whether there are photo references used.

Perhaps you are right. To clarify, starting from scratch means beginning with a blank canvas or illustration board. The artist cannot cut out pieces of the photograph and affix them to his or her painting substrate. For Photoshop, it means starting with a blank file, and applying marks without cloning source material from photographs. In either case, the artist can look at a photographic source for guidance. How's that?

If I clouded the issue, I apologize.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 09:33 AM
Any skilled and experienced artist should be able to tell which parts of his work are from photo references.

I don't mean this as an insult, but would you consider yourself sufficiently skilled and experienced enough to identify which parts of Dru's painting are derived from photo references, and which parts are not? Can I choose any one from his site?

I must lack the necessary visual discernment skills, because I cannot so easily distinguish those differences in his work.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

JMcWilliams
08-05-2005, 09:39 AM
I must disagree with you here, since 3D has some obvious advantages over 2D. Quick changes in lighting direction and Camera POV, for example. 3D also more readily generates perspective solutions.
XSI

:rolleyes: And 3d has disadvantages compared to 2d.
Photoshop is awful at creating realistic images from scratch? Bad workmen blame thier tools. ;)
Despite what some 3D only artists are hoping, we won't be seeing a complete replacement of 2d. :P

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 09:46 AM
From what I read, it appears that they do, starting with a blank canvas, or illustration board



Yes, that's the correct definition of "from scratch," but you were using it to mean "without photo reference"--and that's what I asked--in your definition, that you think airbrush artists do photorealistic works without photo reference?

And I can tell you that it really makes no difference whatsoever if a skilled artist starts a digital image from scratch or uses a photo as base to render on top of. If you have the skill, you can look at photo references and paint photorealistic piece. If you do it with a photo as the base, all it does is speed up the process--you can get the same look by painting it from scratch--as long as you have the photo references.

Yes, 3D can generate hyper-realistic images, but I certainly would not say it's easier, faster, or more efficient. An excellent 3D artist and an excellent 2D artist should both be able to turn out very realistic images. I didn't know you were referring to 3D when you said there are better options. I don't lump 2D and 3D together that way--the two are very different disciplines.

I don't mean this as an insult, but would you consider yourself sufficiently skilled and experienced enough to identify which parts of Dru's painting are derived from photo references, and which parts are not? Can I choose any one from his site?

I must lack the necessary visual discernment skills, because I cannot so easily distinguish those differences in his work.


I think there are plenty of other cgtalk members who can also tell besides me--since they deal with photorealism all day long in their jobs in special effects. Why don't you just post the pieces you can't distinguish, and we'll all look at them and tell you which ones we think are from references?

Kirt
08-05-2005, 09:48 AM
Hi Kirt,

You make some good points about the impossibility of the B-1 over the lake. However, certain elements would have to be created that you couldn't photograph in the real world, such as that sonic shock wave, it's reflection, and the reflection of the plane in the water.You don't need to fly a plane over water in order to reproduce that effect. You could easily distort the wake from a jetski or boat in order to create the shock wave. You could easily invert an image of the plane to get the reflection (adjusting lighting of course). But that was my point anyway. "Certain elements would have to be created" and could easily be done with a photo editor like Photoshop.

I appreciate the links you provided. Some truly great work. However......as good as it was, at no time was I even close to thinking it was photorealistic. The cat came the closest, but it failed around the mouth. ;)

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSISome of Dru's paintings don't come close to convincing me they are photographs either, but that wasn't the point. Dru's comment was that "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."

In most of Dru's illustrations, he's specializing in mechanical recordings of reality and providing almost zero interpretative elements that would give his paintings artistic style.

With the exception of the B1 painting (and the obscure knowlege that a plane would be difficult to handle at that altitude), I find very little in Dru's work that isn't very reality based.

Therefore, I find it ironic and funny that he's basically saying his own work is not art.

Kirt
08-05-2005, 10:00 AM
To clarify, starting from scratch means beginning with a blank canvas or illustration board. The artist cannot cut out pieces of the photograph and affix them to his or her painting substrate.Why not? Copy and paste isn't just a PS set of tools. Illustrators who work traditionally have scissors and glue too. Tracing paper, carbons or Frisket film can be used to transfer a workable duplicate from photo to canvas or illustration board.

I've done airbrush myself a few times and have read techniques in magazines. It's not uncommon to see these methods used to simplify the process of mechanical reproductions (I was careful not to use the term "art" there). :D

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 10:05 AM
Guess why? Because none of the artists Kirt listed is aiming to fool anyone into thinking they are looking at a photograph--that was not why they became artists. I can assure you that those artists have the skill to do it if that's their goal.

Hi Lunatique,

How do you know what the aims of the artists Kirt listed are?

The cars were obviously distorted for effect, but the cat rendering looks like an attempt at photorealism.http://www.cgnetworks.com/gallerycrits/89651/89651_1095243055_medium.jpg
Why else would the artist work so hard trying to get realism in several places in that image? The less realistic area around the mouth doesn't contribute to the painting, it only serves to distract from the enjoyment of the image. Do you really think that that was the artist's aim?

I can also assure you that it's far easier/efficient/powerful to create photorealistic art using digital tools than it is with an airbrush. But the question is, why would you want to? To impress the rubes?

It's far easier/efficient/powerful to create just about any art style using digital tools than it is with a paint brush and oils too. So why don't you just come out and say that there's no point to traditional art techniques in general?

Ah, but digital art is not as highly valued by art patrons as an original painting is it? Do you think that we will ever see $50,000 paid for a digital "original" painting? LOL...I think not, even if such a thing could exist!

Back to Photoshop: I'm just wondering if anyone has managed to create a photorealistic image in photoshop without reworking or cloning from an existing photograph. I'm not championing the photorealistic style by any means, but I do wonder why so many artists on the boards talk about trying to acheive more realsim in their work if they (supposedly) already posess the skills to accomplish it.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally Posted by Axiom Art
To clarify, starting from scratch means beginning with a blank canvas or illustration board. The artist cannot cut out pieces of the photograph and affix them to his or her painting substrate.

Why not? Copy and paste isn't just a PS set of tools. Illustrators who work traditionally have scissors and glue too. Tracing paper, carbons or Frisket film can be used to transfer a workable duplicate from photo to canvas or illustration board.

Funny, I don't see any mention of using scissors and glue on the airbrush forums. Tracing paper and carbons might be used, but that only indicates where the edges are for proportion. There's no texture or color information transferred with tracing paper and carbons, only outlines. I suppose frisket could be used to transfer the outline, but I don't see any indications that airbrush artists normally utilize it in that fashion.

I've done airbrush myself a few times and have read techniques in magazines. It's not uncommon to see these methods used to simplify the process of mechanical reproductions (I was careful not to use the term "art" there). :D

Those same methods to outline the image might be used by an oil painter on a canvas. If that's the case, perhaps we shouldn't use the term "art" there either. ;)

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 10:39 AM
Hi Lunatique,

How do you know what the aims of the artists Kirt listed are?

The cars were obviously distorted for effect, but the cat rendering looks like an attempt at photorealism.http://www.cgnetworks.com/gallerycrits/89651/89651_1095243055_medium.jpg
Why else would the artist work so hard trying to get realism in several places in that image? The less realistic area around the mouth doesn't contribute to the painting, it only serves to distract from the enjoyment of the image. Do you really think that that was the artist's aim?



It's far easier/efficient/powerful to create just about any art style using digital tools than it is with a paint brush and oils too. So why don't you just come out and say that there's no point to traditional art techniques in general?

Ah, but digital art is not as highly valued by art patrons as an original painting is it? Do you think that we will ever see $50,000 paid for a digital "original" painting? LOL...I think not, even if such a thing could exist!

Back to Photoshop: I'm just wondering if anyone has managed to create a photorealistic image in photoshop without reworking or cloning from an existing photograph. I'm not championing the photorealistic style by any means, but I do wonder why so many artists on the boards talk about trying to acheive more realsim in their work if they (supposedly) already posess the skills to accomplish it.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Because these artists are part of our community, and members all talk to each other? You can post in their threads yourself (the links Kirt gave you) and ask them if they intended for their artworks to be completely indistinguishable from photographs and fool people into thinking so.

I'm a traditional artist. I've been a traditional artist for 16 years before I even touched digital. I still paint oil paintings, so I'm not saying there's no point to traditional painting at all--in fact I'm known for being an advocate of traditional art. Have you seen the sticky threads in this forum--that should tell you something. I enjoy traditional painting a lot more than digital.

cgtalk is in general against artworks that are extensively copied from photos--in fact we reject submissions like that, especially if it's copied from commercial photography. We've gotten the kind of submissions you want to see, but they weren't accepted. We value artistic merit beyond mechanical reproductions.

Here are a couple I found in my harddrive--one of them was submitted to cgtalk in the past, and the other one was posted at Shane Gline's old drawing board forum:

*Warning-nudity*
http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/temp/example2.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/temp/example1.jpg

The one of the girl caused all kinds of commotion at Shane's board in the same way that Dru's Tica did here. The guy had to prove to everyone he did paint it from scratch by showing proof, and his co-worker (at a well-known game company) who watched him paint it also came to his defense.

You might want to spend some time in more serious art forums like conceptart.org, sijun forums, eatpoo.com..etc. All of this stuff I'm telling you is common knowledge among experienced artists. They will all tell you the same thing. Hell, if you are brave enough, you could give Cennini forums (http://www.studioproducts.com/forums/) a try--but don't say I didn't warn you. They are merciless to people who show any signs of rubeness, and they see stuff like Dru's work as rubeness.

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 10:42 AM
Yes, that's the correct definition of "from scratch," but you were using it to mean "without photo reference"?

I don't think so. I always meant it as starting from a blank canvas or file.

Yes, 3D can generate hyper-realistic images, but I certainly would not say it's easier, faster, or more efficient. An excellent 3D artist and an excellent 2D artist should both be able to turn out very realistic images. I didn't know you were referring to 3D when you said there are better options. I don't lump 2D and 3D together that way--the two are very different disciplines.

3D is easier, faster and more efficient than photoshop at certain things. When I mentioned other options, I referred to other digital programs one might use to create realism, but I saw no reason to limit it to 2D programs, when 3D software is widely available to most of us.


I think there are plenty of other cgtalk members who can also tell besides me--since they deal with photorealism all day long in their jobs in special effects. Why don't you just post the pieces you can't distinguish, and we'll all look at them and tell you which ones we think are from references?

Fair enough. I'll try to post one tomorrow. Of course we won't really know if we are correct unless we contact the artist. ;-)

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 10:51 AM
Of course we won't really know if we are correct unless we contact the artist. ;-)


I'm not even sure why it matters. Obviously he uses references, and whatever looks real to your eyes is referenced, and whatever doesn't, isn't. I strongly suggest you pose this question to the other art forums I mentioned--you'll get a better idea as to how artists in general feel about these issues. cgtalk is not a good representation of the traditional artist community.

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 11:10 AM
You don't need to fly a plane over water in order to reproduce that effect. You could easily distort the wake from a jetski or boat in order to create the shock wave. You could easily invert an image of the plane to get the reflection (adjusting lighting of course). But that was my point anyway. "Certain elements would have to be created" and could easily be done with a photo editor like Photoshop

Except that reflections are not mere inverted images, because the perspective of a reflection differs from that of the subject. What about knowing how to distort the reflection on the water?


In most of Dru's illustrations, he's specializing in mechanical recordings of reality and providing almost zero interpretative elements that would give his paintings artistic style..

Ummm.... and exactly how do you know that his interpretative elements are almost ZERO, and not 40% or even 60%?

With the exception of the B1 painting (and the obscure knowlege that a plane would be difficult to handle at that altitude), I find very little in Dru's work that isn't very reality based...

Of course it's reality based, isn't that the foundation of all representational work?
What about the painting entitled Tomcat, Timing is Everything, Thunderstruck, The Last Hot Flight, Rising Force, Deliverance, Pathfinder, Hellstorm, of Foundations of Freedom? All have some quality of impossibility to them that could not be acheived with a camera.


Therefore, I find it ironic and funny that he's basically saying his own work is not art.

Hmmmmn.. I couldn't find him indicating that anywhere. All of us, with the exception of abstract expressionists paint reality-based images, but Dru doesn't assert that is what makes photography not art. To him, the camera doesn't interpret, it records, and I tend to agree. Sure, the operator has to make the choice to point it somewhere, and might even create some fog in the room to alter the scene, but in the end, the film (or ccd) records what the lens sees. Without interpretation.

It is very clear in his statement that his work is interpretive. We just need to find out how much...

Off to bed...

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Lunatique
08-05-2005, 11:53 AM
It is very clear in his statement that his work is interpretive. We just need to find out how much...


Actually, YOU need to find out because you seem to be the only one that's intrigued. Truth is, if you can't tell by looking, then I'm not sure if any of this will matter much to you in the end.

I'm off to bed. Gotta take wife to hospital tomorrow.

PSR
08-05-2005, 12:49 PM
A few examples of photorealism using traditional media:

http://www.pedrocampos.net/pagina_nueva_1.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulcorfield/gallery.htm

http://www.aliciastrose.com/b-gallery.html

http://www.toypaintings.com/gallery.htm

I think CGers might find some of the above interesting.

TheDagger
08-05-2005, 04:26 PM
My personal definition of art is that if someone creates something and means it to be art, then it is art. I value pieces that evoke emotions, tell a story or have a personal feel in them. What the artist wants to say is more important to me than the way the artwork is created, be it a photograph, super realistic painting or cartoony drawing.

I browsed through Dru Blair's gallery and his technical skill is amazing. I have to give him my respects and would love to be as skilled as he is in that aspect one day. Some of his work I like a lot but some feel.. impersonal. I've seen many pencil artist that do really great portraits or still life drawings but to me those are mainly just technical master pieces and not art master pieces. I can't see the artist or his/her vision in them. (Although the drawings still are art or course.) I feel pretty much the same about Blair's work whether it relies mainly on copying reference pictures or not.

But we all value different things in art and have different opinions on matters and that is ok by me. I disagree with Blair about photography not being art. Photography is much more than simply pressing a button to take the photo. One needs to have vision, understanding about composition, light and many many other things. http://www.deviantart.com/view/4761262/ for instance is art in my opinion. The artist clearly had something more in his mind than merely copying nature. The random photos in family albums are not art because they were not meant to be art pieces in the first place. Those I could be called merely mechanical recordings of reality.

Kirt
08-05-2005, 04:49 PM
Ehm ... nm. This has turned into a pointless discussion. :D

XLNT-3d
08-05-2005, 04:54 PM
It just comes down to the fact that he is a commercial ilustrator. You illustrate what you get paid to illustrate and in the media or style that art directors and clients expect from your work. The military commisions most of his work and they must love it. I know the B1 was done back in the 80s and it became a lawsuit issue of copyright infrindgement. The government used it in one of their presentations because they thought is was real and obviously photographed by the military due to its nature. He had to prove that it wasn't a photo. In the end, that helped him with success. Also, he sells posters and prints like mad and has a successful training center. Who cares about being an artist and what the hell that means, he is a successful illustrator in the art field and highly respected among his professional peers.

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 11:53 PM
But we all value different things in art and have different opinions on matters and that is ok by me. I disagree with Blair about photography not being art. Photography is much more than simply pressing a button to take the photo. One needs to have vision, understanding about composition, light and many many other things. http://www.deviantart.com/view/4761262/ for instance is art in my opinion. The artist clearly had something more in his mind than merely copying nature. The random photos in family albums are not art because they were not meant to be art pieces in the first place. Those I could be called merely mechanical recordings of reality.

Hi, it is not that I don't respect your opinion- I do. I just want to play devil's advocate for a moment here:

What if I take a standard group photo of my family while on vacation and pronounce it "art"? Would it then become "art?"

If not, why wouldn't it be "art" since I proclaimed it as such and used all the elements such as light, compostion, camera position, technical know-how, etc?

If you agree that my family photo is "art," just because I say so, and it looks like all the other photos in my family album, why wouldn't all the other photos be art too? Does it being "art" soley depend on the photographer's intention? Can we tell what the photographer's intention was just by looking at the image? Is it always so clear?

Let me take it a bit further:
So I have my little throw-away camera, and I'm on vacation, and I take a picture of my family, with the intention of saying it is "art." Can I take more photos with the same camera of the exact same scene and pronounce them non-art? Can I switch back and forth merely by intention?

I agree that it takes technical skill to operate a camera, but it takes technical skill to do a lot of things that we don't call art. Besides, it doesn't seem that technical skill is a prerequisite for art, as witnessed by a few abstract paintings I've seen. (I'm not dissing abstract art, but I don't think that a big yellow canvas I once saw in a museum required much technical skill to create).

I'm just curious about your opinion on where the distinction lies. I'm apologize if I am irritating.

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

Axiom Art
08-05-2005, 11:56 PM
Actually, YOU need to find out because you seem to be the only one that's intrigued. Truth is, if you can't tell by looking, then I'm not sure if any of this will matter much to you in the end.

I'm off to bed. Gotta take wife to hospital tomorrow.

I will, thanks for the info. I hope that your wife is okay.

Melissa
Softimage 3D
XSI

PSR
08-06-2005, 12:56 AM
What if I take a standard group photo of my family while on vacation and pronounce it "art"? Would it then become "art?"

Yes.

Art is not only what is accepted by museums and galleries. There are degrees of excellence, the whole range from first class to rubbish.

Fundamentally art is anything made by people, it is simply short for artifice, artificial.

The devils other advocate here
;)

Axiom Art
08-06-2005, 03:05 AM
Yes.

Art is not only what is accepted by museums and galleries. There are degrees of excellence, the whole range from first class to rubbish.

Fundamentally art is anything made by people, it is simply short for artifice, artificial.

The devils other advocate here
;)

Unless it is Photorealism!

LOL

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

stepington
08-06-2005, 04:32 AM
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1166/rm251yr.jpg
Someday I'll understand the passion behind all of this. . . .

mangual
08-06-2005, 04:56 AM
Here's an idea I'd like to throw out there: With all this talk of Dru Blair, has anyone thought to ask HIM to come here and join the discussion? Anyone actually email him and ask HIM about the particular piece in question? You know, as opposed to continuing to speculate on everything from his artistic techniques to his psychological motivations.

Might be a polite thing to do...

Think to yourself--if this whole discussion had been going on about you and your artwork on some website, would you want to know about it and have the chance to actually set the record straight?

Let's afford him the respect he deserves.

In fact, I'm going to try contacting him right now and provide a link to this discussion.

Lunatique
08-06-2005, 06:06 AM
I'm tempted to close this thread. It's just going in circles over and over and over.

At this point, I think people should really just think about the following:

1) Does it matter if he painted Tica or not? If he did--he's got very refined rendering skills, and if he didn't, the world hasn't changed as far as we are concerned. Either way, does any of this really matter in the end in your own artistic goals and dreams?

2) Whether his work is art is something people will never agree on--no need to debate till everyone's blue in the face. Airbrush has been debated in the art world for as long as it existed. Photorealism has been debated for as long as it's existed. None of this is new--it's been debated to death even before some of us were born. We will never all agree, and it'll stay that way until the end of time--it's human nature. (This is why I don't like "what is art?" type of discussions--it goes NOWHERE fast.)

3) How much photo-reference he uses for his other works is really irrelevant. Different artists have different ways of working. Some rely heavily on photo references (Jim Burns, Tim Bradstreet, Alex Ross, Gil Elvgren, Steve Hanks..etc), and some don't (Amano Yoshitaka, Brian Froud, Kinuko Craft, Terada Katsuya, Kim Hyung Tae..etc). It's up to you how much and how you use photo-references. If you want to do works that looks just like Dru's, or is simply curious, then go and email him and ask him how much photo-references he used on which pieces. That's YOUR artistic quest. Us speculating here won't mean a damn to you anyway unless you hear it from the horse's mouth.

I'd like it if we could turn the direction of this thread and talk about the 3 points I raised, because I think those 3 points are a lot more meaningful and helpful to our artistic growth. We really shouldn't be sitting here debating about someone else's work--we should all be busy working on our own stuff.

phoenix
08-06-2005, 06:32 AM
Simply marvelouus ...

mangual
08-06-2005, 07:02 AM
I'm tempted to close this thread. It's just going in circles over and over and over.

At this point, I think people should really just think about the following:

1) Does it matter if he painted Tica or not? If he did--he's got very refined rendering skills, and if he didn't, the world hasn't changed as far as we are concerned. Either way, does any of this really matter in the end in your own artistic goals and dreams?

2) Whether his work is art is something people will never agree on--no need to debate till everyone's blue in the face. Airbrush has been debated in the art world for as long as it existed. Photorealism has been debated for as long as it's existed. None of this is new--it's been debated to death even before some of us were born. We will never all agree, and it'll stay that way until the end of time--it's human nature. (This is why I don't like "what is art?" type of discussions--it goes NOWHERE fast.)

3) How much photo-reference he uses for his other works is really irrelevant. Different artists have different ways of working. Some rely heavily on photo references (Jim Burns, Tim Bradstreet, Alex Ross, Gil Elvgren, Steve Hanks..etc), and some don't (Amano Yoshitaka, Brian Froud, Kinuko Craft, Terada Katsuya, Kim Hyung Tae..etc). It's up to you how much and how you use photo-references. If you want to do works that looks just like Dru's, or is simply curious, then go and email him and ask him how much photo-references he used on which pieces. That's YOUR artistic quest. Us speculating here won't mean a damn to you anyway unless you hear it from the horse's mouth.

I'd like it if we could turn the direction of this thread and talk about the 3 points I raised, because I think those 3 points are a lot more meaningful and helpful to our artistic growth. We really shouldn't be sitting here debating about someone else's work--we should all be busy working on our own stuff.

Lunatique, with all due respect -- it does not surprise me that after having spent quite a bit of your energy disparaging Dru's work, you now feel the urge to close this thread as soon as someone brings up the possibility he might actually come here and speak for himself.

But now that you might actually be confronted with what you said, the tone of your posts has changed and is a lot nicer! In fact, your suggestion for others to get back to worrying about their own art is refreshing and one I definitely agree with.

You do seem to spend a great deal of time giving your opinions on all sorts of things that do not involve your own art. Heed your advice.

I will get him to take a look at this discussion, so stick around. It would be an outrage if you close this thread before he has a chance to speak for himself.

Lunatique
08-06-2005, 07:12 AM
Lunatique, with all due respect -- it does not surprise me that after having spent quite a bit of your energy disparaging Dru's work, you now feel the urge to close this thread as soon as someone brings up the possibility he might actually come here and speak for himself.

But now that you might actually be confronted with what you said, the tone of your posts has changed and is a lot nicer! In fact, your suggestion for others to get back to worrying about their own art is refreshing and one I definitely agree with.

You do seem to spend a great deal of time giving your opinions on all sorts of things that do not involve your own art. Heed your advice.

I will get him to take a look at this discussion, so stick around. It would be an outrage if you close this thread before he has a chance to speak for himself.

1) I have wanted to close this thread for a while now--it reached the breaking point last night when I was talking to Kirt by PM about this thread. It has NOTHING to do with whether Dru comes here. He's more than welcome to come and discuss his work. My opinion of his work remains that--MY OPINION, as you are free to have yours. We all have our opinions about artworks, movies, music, books, politics..etc--there's nothing wrong with stating your opinion. I at no time said anything about Dru other than my opinion of airbrushed works in general, the validity of the Tica piece as "art" in the traditional sense (or my personal definition), and how he compares to other artists that others have compared him with. It's not as if I made personal attacks on his personal life, his character as a human bering..etc. Why do you think I HAVEN'T closed this thread, but only said I'm tempted? Because I wanted to give people a chance to bring this to some kind of a closure. If I just closed it, a lot of people will feel like there was no closure. In fact, as long as people remain civilized and relevant, this thread can go on as long as you guys want.

2) I'm the one who created this forum. I have a responsibility as a Forum Leader to be involved in this forum--that's why I post my fair share here. I'm volunteering my freetime to do this, and I put a lot of time and energy into it (look at the sticky threads), as does the other Forum Leaders like Stahlberg, Enayla..etc. I had to fight for this forum to be added to cgtalk initially. And I do heed my own advice--I paint everyday.

3) My tone is softer because I'm tired of going in circles--I want to wrap this up with points that actually leads to us thinking about whether any of this means anything in the end.

mangual
08-06-2005, 07:23 AM
Thanks for the explanation. I am glad someone with your reasoned judgement and open-mindedness has been chosen as a community leader.

Your honesty is appreciated, and I agree that this thread had been going around in circles and getting on my nerves for a while because it seemed rather unproductive.

But I just felt the artist should get a chance to say something. Maybe it's better overall though if we all just move on to happier things =)

bloodw
08-07-2005, 04:36 PM
offcourse this means nothing in the end, just like a million other threads around here

archerx
08-07-2005, 05:50 PM
if an image can evoke so much from so many people is it not art ?

jesuislinus
08-07-2005, 06:29 PM
ok. now it is art....


http://www.linus.de/cgnet/ticastepwebbig.jpg

Axiom Art
08-09-2005, 12:04 AM
Since it is not longer photorealism, it must qualify as "art."
Wait! We need to add a title to give it meaning now. After all, it must be meaningful to be "real art." How about something artsy like "Contemplation of the Human Condition" ? :wip:

Melissa
SoftImage 3D
XSI

LoTekK
08-09-2005, 09:01 AM
Wow. This discussion has gone from somewhat intriguing, to annoyingly opinionated, to completely pointless.

John Keates
08-09-2005, 09:57 AM
He he... your avatar suits that statement completely. It looks like he is saying it.

Alice
08-09-2005, 10:45 AM
oh well, I see the point in doing something like this, aswell as doing what Linda did with her redhead a couple of weeks (months?) ago. Testing. See if you can do it, se how the people react. Provoce minds of other artists, its much needed.

But this sure is the only artist I have seen who have bothered painting fake jewlry and bad foundation on a portrait.

DrFx
08-09-2005, 11:52 AM
I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I felt compelled to add an insignificant post just to bump this thread above all the other less important threads and tutorials in the Art Discussion forum. :twisted:

airartiste
08-09-2005, 01:50 PM
It appears that my painting has fostered quite a bit of speculation over not only it's origin, but also to it's purpose and merit.

When I received invitations from several cgtalk members to visit, I had no idea that there was a forum with so many people working at this level. Having worked in both 2D and 3D for the past 10 years, I'm wholly impressed with the quality of the work I'm seeing here. There are some truly amazing artists posting on this site.

I'll try to respond to some of the questions and comments this evening.

Dru Blair
www.drublair.com (http://www.drublair.com/)

DrFx
08-09-2005, 04:30 PM
Wow, it's you yourself!
First of all thank you so much for coming here, and I've got a question!
"The painting of Tica": is it really real?

Edit: I mean, of course, the center picture, surrounded by the "steps". Some people here (myself included) think it's just the reference picture because of the insane amount of detail, others think it's quite possible given the quality of your other work- which is indeed very, very good.A post has been made saying it was something like an April Fools' joke, meant to be humorous. So which one is it?


Thanks!

airartiste
08-09-2005, 06:21 PM
"The painting of Tica": is it really real?
Edit: I mean, of course, the center picture, surrounded by the "steps". Some people here (myself included) think it's just the reference picture because of the insane amount of detail, others think it's quite possible given the quality of your other work- which is indeed very, very good.A post has been made saying it was something like an April Fools' joke, meant to be humorous. So which one is it?

Yes, all the images on that page are photographs taken of the original painting, and yes, the amount of detail was insane.

I apologize for the sequential gaps on the site, but I wanted to reserve most of the images for the soon-to-be-published step-by-step article. However, I can post a few more intermediate steps on my site without taking too much away from the upcoming article.

Since my site primarily functions as a mechanism for promoting and selling my aviation prints, I don't usually display much in the way of figurative work. Here is my previous portrait painting effort:
http://www.drublair.com/workshops/images/vanessacrop.jpg

No, The Tica painting wasn't an April Fool's joke, but the following might qualify (You'll have to look closely):
http://www.airbrush.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=69572&mpage=1&key=&#69572

Dru Blair

DrFx
08-09-2005, 08:47 PM
Thank you for the reply, dear sir, I think I'll go eat my hat now! :argh:

yum, that was tasty! I have another question, if you don't mind! Do you view the pursuit of photo perfectionism in Tica and Vanessa as merely "technical" endeavours, or is this part of a broader goal in your art?

P.S.: If you have browsed around this site you may have noticed there is a regular Q&A item in the main forum area. If you think you have the time and would like to do a session, you can propose just that to the administrators (Leo and Leigh). Even though you are not a "digital" artist, I am sure there would be great interest from everybody to ask you a bunch of questions!

Thanks again!:thumbsup:

airartiste
08-10-2005, 08:21 AM
Do you view the pursuit of photo perfectionism in Tica and Vanessa as merely "technical" endeavours, or is this part of a broader goal in your art?

No, it is part of a broader goal.

I think it is important to develop artistic competency in order to more effectively connect with one's audience. The visual world, to be commanded, must be understood.

The practice of Photorealism provides an effective mechanism for gaining understanding of the visual experience, because holding artistic ability to the standard of reality forces growth in one's powers of observation. This knowledge and understanding in turn, can add to the artist's effectiveness when working in other visual mediums, including the digital realm.

With sufficient understanding of the visual world, an artist can eliminate the need for photo reference, and often gains the power to conjure convincing illusions of reality purely from his or her imagination.

Although both the Tica and Vanessa paintings began as class demonstrations, their ultimate purpose evolved twofold: to evaluate my visual and observational competency, and to promote growth for myself in those areas.


Dru Blair

XLNT-3d
08-10-2005, 05:07 PM
A post has been made saying it was something like an April Fools' joke, meant to be humorous.

That was me, because I felt this thread was getting ridiculous and hostile. Plus it was pretty late at night and I was quite punchy.

Hi Dru, I was at an Airbrush Getaway back in 1991 in New York. You were giving demos and instruction along with Terry and some others. I think you were doing some portrait airbrushing on a jacket or something. I had no idea you were into the 3d for so long. You should check out http://arance.net/, he also has several avaiation pieces. He uses Lightwave. You, Arance and Mark Miller are my inspiration for some of the work I do as well.

ekah
08-10-2005, 06:15 PM
What constitutes art or not has been debated for centuries. I don't believe that a thread like this is going to conclude what constitutes art or what makes an artist. However, if we're to declare ourselves "artists" or state that we are creating "art", then I think it's a valid question worth asking even if the debate seems to go around in circles and is a never-ending one. Arts communities often gripe about the general public's lack of understanding about art. How can we ask the general public to understand what we do when two artists can't even agree on on what art or what artist is?

The meaning of the word "artist" or "art" has evolved and mutated over time beyond recognition and is so broad that just about anything could fall into the category of art in today's definition of "art". The crossover between commercial art and fine art is rampant today. This is neither good nor bad in my opinion. I believe the meaning of the word reflects the society in which one lives in or its time. I also believe the original meaning of the word "artist" was much closer to someone possessing a technical skill or craftsman. The "self" or "personal" aspect of artist was not introduced until the arrival of Romanticism. Before that, artists created art to serve greater purpose than their own self. This was either in the form of religion, technological advancement, their kings, etc. My understanding is that what we call "artist" today is relatively a modern idea.

While I understand the passion behind the heated arguments, I think it will be a much healthier exercise if we step back and study the history behind the vocation we are in to have an open mind about who we are and what we do. Perhaps we should remember that many artists from each period, some of whom we consider masters today, have been shunned by their peers because their work did not fit the definition of art of its time.

Not that long ago, digitally-created art was not considered art, and it still isn't considered art by most traditional arts communities. I think most visitors of this forum are open-minded enough to defend digital art as an artist's medium. I would like to see this community (cgsociety) extend that open-mindedness to other communities whether it be airbrush, spraypaint, cookie dough, etc, regardless of what one thinks of the medium and whether one thinks it's good art or bad art. These opinons are highly subjective to the individual and to the time we live in - its survival is yet to be tested. We won't be around to find out what the future generation of artists will say about our time.

What makes this particular community special to me is the fact that contrary to what most fine arts communities think of digital art, and ironically, this community of artists celebrates and embraces craftmanship which had long been neglected by the high-and-mighty world of fine arts.


The Art Renewal Center (http://www.artrenewal.org/) - This is a great site for those interested in classical realism. Their philosophy revolves around renewing appreciation for artist's craftmanship which had been neglected by modernists.

Chuck Close (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_close) - Someone on this thread mentioned Chuck Close. He is one of the most well known comtemporary photorealist. You really have to see his work in person to appreciate the craftmanship.

"Be courteous and polite. Show respect to the opinions and feelings of others. Use of the forums is a privilege, not a right."

Thank you for the opportunity. I really appreciate it. Now let's have a glass of wine. ;)

Respectfully,

ekah

PSR
08-10-2005, 08:26 PM
The Art Renewal Center (http://www.artrenewal.org/) - This is a great site for those interested in classical realism. Their philosophy revolves around renewing appreciation for artist's craftmanship which had been neglected by modernists.

Chuck Close (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_close) - Someone on this thread mentioned Chuck Close. He is one of the most well known comtemporary photorealist. You really have to see his work in person to appreciate the craftmanship.

"Be courteous and polite. Show respect to the opinions and feelings of others. Use of the forums is a privilege, not a right."

Thank you for the opportunity. I really appreciate it. Now let's have a glass of wine. ;)

Respectfully,

ekah

I'm curious to know where the notion that craftsmanship is neglected by modernists. Chuck Close is an example that contradicts this notion emphatically. His paintings are very good illustrations of modernist principles in art.

Note, that the works in many cases are quite large, and only resolve their photorealist imagery from a distance. Up close they are very much about the surface and mark making. The process is also very apparent, with the construction grid often clearly visible. No attempt is made to hide the means by which the work is created, or to deny the fact of what it is, a painted object.

Fortunately, the spectrum of art practise is very broad. But common to all artists who are serious about their work, is integrity and commitment.

And btw cheers, i'd be vry happy to join you to a glass of wine
:)

John Keates
08-10-2005, 09:49 PM
Hi Dru,

First, may I say what a privilage it is to chat to you here. You were one of my heros when I was doing the whole airbrush art thing.

I understand your motives for persuing realism as you do and that isn't a concern of mine. However, dispite the knowledge that you are one of the very greatest airbrush artists that there is, I have a lot of trouble looking at that Tica image as a painting. It is on quite a different level to the other figurative image that you have shown - not just as regards the detail.

I really don't want to distrust you and you have my respect regardless, but I am just speachless.

Usually, when faced with such a situation on this forum, we ask for the original photo to be shown. Would this be possible?

ekah
08-11-2005, 04:52 AM
I'm curious to know where the notion that craftsmanship is neglected by modernists. Chuck Close is an example that contradicts this notion emphatically. His paintings are very good illustrations of modernist principles in art.

Chuck Close is one of few exceptions in my opinion, and I gave this example fully aware of the contradiction.

My notion that craftmanship had been neglected by modernists comes directly from four years of art school in NYC between the end of the 80's and into the early 90's and may be very narrow to that period, and it could very well be an ignorant one. If I had wanted to become a painter at the time at my shool, I could not get the quality of training that were available at ateliers like The Art Students League or many ateliers in Florence, Italy. Technical excellence as a painter was neither encouraged nor rewarded at my school with the exception of few foundation drawing classes. Even as early as foundation year, equal emphasis was given to anatomically-correct figure drawing as well as expressive figure drawing. Students were taught to break rules before even learning the rules. This was a confusing time for me. I had attended this particular school because of its fame for art and design (at least in NYC). I believe that rules should be learned before breaking them, only then can you know why you're breaking them, but that is my own personal opinion. I know for a fact that there are many artists who don't agree with me on this because they feel it is oppressive and is an unnecessary baggage to know all the rules. I do understand their point of view to a certain degree. It can be somewhat like being asked to forget how one learned to walk and learn it in a new way. However, based on my experience, the opposite was true.

At the time, politically art or "conceptual art" was all the rage. Conceptual art, as you may already know, has nothing to do with what we know as "concept art" in CG community. Students were taught to revere artists like Jenny Holzer whose work I did not care for. I was disillusioned with the world of fine arts. Commercial Art (Illustration), on the other hand, was not considered art and therefore didn't matter. Guess what? I went into commercial art.

Perhaps all of this has changed since the time I was in school. I am not part of the fine arts world nor have I been following it closely to know what is going on, but I am seeing more painters whose style I think would not have been recognized ten years ago being shown at big name museums today. I remember reading about three years (?) ago that Norman Rockwell's work were being shown at the Guggenheim. This was a shock to me. There is another painter (a living artist) whose name escapes me. He paints in the style of the old italian masters, and he paints these women with skinny necks. Hm, I'll have to dig up his name. Anyhow, this seems like a new trend to me that big name museums would embrace these styles from living artists. Or is the pendulum swinging the other way?


Fortunately, the spectrum of art practise is very broad. But common to all artists who are serious about their work, is integrity and commitment.

And btw cheers, i'd be vry happy to join you to a glass of wine
:)

I agree. Cheers, and thank you. Sorry for my blabs. I believe I went on about this longer than I care to. :)

sllink
08-12-2005, 12:43 AM
I do not buy it.
Because he even painted the hint of a thin white beard on her chin and that is just plain mean...

LOL omg LOL

sllink
08-12-2005, 12:49 AM
No, it is part of a broader goal.

I think it is important to develop artistic competency in order to more effectively connect with one's audience. The visual world, to be commanded, must be understood.

The practice of Photorealism provides an effective mechanism for gaining understanding of the visual experience, because holding artistic ability to the standard of reality forces growth in one's powers of observation. This knowledge and understanding in turn, can add to the artist's effectiveness when working in other visual mediums, including the digital realm.

With sufficient understanding of the visual world, an artist can eliminate the need for photo reference, and often gains the power to conjure convincing illusions of reality purely from his or her imagination.

Although both the Tica and Vanessa paintings began as class demonstrations, their ultimate purpose evolved twofold: to evaluate my visual and observational competency, and to promote growth for myself in those areas.


Dru Blair

Well said!:thumbsup: Great work I might have to come down to NC and take a class!

igorstshirts
08-12-2005, 01:37 AM
Hey Dru!


Do you think that the airbrush is frowned upon by most "artists"? If so, why?

airartiste
08-15-2005, 05:01 AM
Hi Dru, I was at an Airbrush Getaway back in 1991 in New York. You were giving demos and instruction along with Terry and some others. I think you were doing some portrait airbrushing on a jacket or something. I had no idea you were into the 3d for so long. You should check out http://arance.net/, he also has several avaiation pieces. He uses Lightwave. You, Arance and Mark Miller are my inspiration for some of the work I do as well.
Hi Jon,

Sorry for the delayed response. I was at my antebellum plantation in SC through the weekend.

Its amazing how our career paths cross more than once. I'm familiar with Arance's work, and agree that his Lightwave work is inspiring.


Hey Dru!
Do you think that the airbrush is frowned upon by most "artists"? If so, why?
I believe that the airbrush is frowned upon by many artists who disdain technological departure from traditional mark-making. I don't think that they realize that a primitive type of airbrush was used in prehistoric times, and the "hair at the end of a stick" was a technological innovation that arrived later.

With the advent of computer graphics, a lot of their attacks have shifted to the digital medium. To me, the airbrush is just an artist's tool, like the computer and the traditional paint brush.

Dru Blair

PSR
08-15-2005, 07:26 AM
I believe that the airbrush is frowned upon by many artists who disdain technological departure from traditional mark-making. I don't think that they realize that a primitive type of airbrush was used in prehistoric times, and the "hair at the end of a stick" was a technological innovation that arrived later.

A slightly unfair assumption, don't you think?

Most artists, in my experience, choose tools appropriate to the task at hand. I mean, you wouldn't take an airbrush and compressor into the mountains to paint a view.
Would you have chosen an airbrush to paint your model from life?

With the advent of computer graphics, a lot of their attacks have shifted to the digital medium. To me, the airbrush is just an artist's tool, like the computer and the traditional paint brush.

Highlighting the limitations of a medium or a technology, doesn't have to be regarded as an attack. It can often be the driver for progress..

JMcWilliams
08-15-2005, 08:06 AM
Highlighting the limitations of a medium or a technology, doesn't have to be regarded as an attack. It can often be the driver for progress..
Most people who turn thier noses up at digital tools, do so out of some form of snobbery. ie "it's not real art!". I lived with that opinion in art college from even a few of the tutors.
Thats the only unfair assumption, I would say. ;)

airartiste
08-15-2005, 07:57 PM
A slightly unfair assumption, don't you think?
On their part, yes. From what I've observed, about 80% of those artists exclusively using traditional brush on canvas harbor a bias against airbrush and digital art. However, I'm hoping that those attitudes will evolve.

Most artists, in my experience, choose tools appropriate to the task at hand. I mean, you wouldn't take an airbrush and compressor into the mountains to paint a view.
Would you have chosen an airbrush to paint your model from life? Probably. Although considering the portability of small aerosol cans, there wouldn't be a huge difference between lugging oil painting gear and airbrush gear into the mountains.

Freehand airbrush is very much akin to using a pencil, so it is well-suited to painting from life.

Highlighting the limitations of a medium or a technology, doesn't have to be regarded as an attack. It can often be the driver for progress..
Yes, but unfortunately, there's the politics of omission.

Dru Blair

shadowman99
08-15-2005, 09:55 PM
Dru -

I was one of the people who emailed your webmaster and pointed out your have been accused of art fraud in this thread. I find it offensive, and I'm pleased that you have choosen to make your own voice heard in this discussion. I do hope a few people have the decency to offer appologies.

I worked with an air brush before finding digital art, and although I don't consider airbrush one of my strongest skills, I have respect for those who have reached your level. I distain the snobery that views the airbrush as something only fit for t-shirts and Harley pans.

I first became aware of your work through Air Brush Action 10 or 11 years ago, and even then you were working at a photoreal level.

Thank you for joining this rather nasty discussion. 99% of the discussions on this forum are civil and pleasent. I'm sorry some people have broken into their worst behaivior when reviewing your art.

pushav
08-15-2005, 10:43 PM
here is what you should do dru, treak your portrait some in photoshop and submit this in the choice 2d gallery and get once of those forum awards! This picture is great.

ekah
08-15-2005, 11:08 PM
Dru -

I was one of the people who emailed your webmaster and pointed out your have been accused of art fraud in this thread. I find it offensive, and I'm pleased that you have choosen to make your own voice heard in this discussion. I do hope a few people have the decency to offer appologies.

I think it's understandable that people were skeptical. I certainly was one those people. While I had defended the medium he used, I was not aware of Dru Blair's work prior to this thread. I had thought it was a photo, and not a real airbrush work. I don't doubt it anymore now that there had been testimonies from some of Dru's fans including yourself, but I still have that nagging feeling of wanting to see it in person to completely convince myself. I hope that Dru takes that as a compliment and not see it as an accusation for fraud.

Having said that, you must see these works from makeup/fx artist/sculptor Kazuhiro Tsuji. These links were posted in the 3DSMax forum by a VFX artist, Mitch Gates. Had the links been posted by someone I didn't know I would have thought these were photos. Amazing work! Go take a look.

http://members.aol.com/vthelmnt/ (http://members.aol.com/vthelmnt/)
http://www.chetzar.com/bigdick.html (http://www.chetzar.com/bigdick.html)

ekah

Lunatique
08-16-2005, 01:58 AM
here is what you should do dru, treak your portrait some in photoshop and submit this in the choice 2d gallery and get once of those forum awards! This picture is great.

cgtalk rejects submissions that are mechanical copies of photographs in 2D. Photorealism and realism are not the same thing. Photorealism looks indistinguishable from a photograph, and realism is meant to look like a painting.

PSR
08-16-2005, 06:42 AM
Probably. Although considering the portability of small aerosol cans, there wouldn't be a huge difference between lugging oil painting gear and airbrush gear into the mountains.

Lol. Yes, and there's always the option of taking my powerbook with the smaller of my two Wacoms. What I had in mind there would be, a small sketchbook, couple of pencils and a compact digital camera.

Re reading my post, I see that my choice of words regarding choosing tools appropriate to the task was not right. I mean, everyone has their preferences, and are disposed to different ways of working. It can only be good to have lots of options. My own airbrushes have been rendered useless for a long time, I lack the discipline required for their maintenance, and I certainly never acquired the technical proficiency that you have. I do still use the prehistoric type you mentioned, from time to time though.

I have enjoyed following this thread, because it's made me think about issues that I have not really considered much since my student days. I like what you said about freehand airbrush being like using a pencil.

And if you don't already, I highly recommend that you give drawing from life a try. It really is a much better way to improve ones understanding of the visual experience.

arvid
08-16-2005, 12:15 PM
Boy, did this thread explode or what :D

Hey Dru, very cool to see you here! I'd be very interested in seeing some more closeups and steps along the way, you can do amazing things with your tools, needless to say!

airartiste
08-16-2005, 09:52 PM
I hope that Dru takes that as a compliment and not see it as an accusation for fraud.

Skepticism from those who are so visually sophisticated is definitely a compliment. I've taken no offense to anything I've read here.

Having said that, you must see these works from makeup/fx artist/sculptor Kazuhiro Tsuji.

I agree, his work is totally amazing.


And if you don't already, I highly recommend that you give drawing from life a try. It really is a much better way to improve ones understanding of the visual experience.

Agreed. I've painted from life with oils (training with Marvin Mattleson- an academic descendant of William Bouguereau), and it has really improved my visual skills.


I'd be very interested in seeing some more closeups and steps along the way, you can do amazing things with your tools, needless to say!

Thanks Arvid,

I'll get some more closeups on the site as soon as I can.


Dru Blair