Photorealism in traditional art

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01 January 2006   #1
Exclamation Photorealism in traditional art

This is most incredible thing in traditional art... If its true, that I could say: FANTASTIC.
How to make it?

Page
__________________
\/ O L T /\
 
Old 01 January 2006   #2
uh oh.... I guess you missed the HUGE thread about this already.... It was not very pretty


But I think this rocks...
__________________
Archerx.com - Portfolio site
CG Cast -Ep35- Not dead yet
CG Chat - Lets Chat About CG!
 
Old 01 January 2006   #3
70 hours and (pretty much) copied from photo. waste of time

edit:

'As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision.'

This 'interpretation' based on the artists 'vision' is remarkable simlilar to exact reality of a professional photo session.

Last edited by matmonkfish : 01 January 2006 at 08:31 PM.
 
Old 01 January 2006   #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by archerx
uh oh.... I guess you missed the HUGE thread about this already.... It was not very pretty


But I think this rocks...


i guess i missed that one too...do have a link to it, or know how long ago it was so I can search for it?
__________________
Kaos Studios
Environment artist

Game Assets Thread

Personal Site
 
Old 01 January 2006   #5
__________________
Bath House
 
Old 01 January 2006   #6
let's hope one day this marathon process replaces the cumbersome technology of photography
 
Old 01 January 2006   #7
Although the image on the site was done in stages and shown on the site and, blah, blah, blah....

I wonder to all those who think photo-realism is a waste of time and/ or energy, or see it as a worthless form of art, what should be the benchmark for those who paint or draw in the realism genre? " My piece looks about 80% real, so leave it at that? 92% ?" How about," I can't even draw a conclusion, let alone a real piece of art, and I will just get people to believe that my name has merit in the art world so they buy my mystique and not the quality of my work." (Jeff Koons comes to mind )

In No way do I care about the photo-realism aspect of the piece on the website link. I have seen others that can do as good or even a better job " copying " a photo. I do wonder, if you have people support Dadaism on the one extreme, should there not be a appreciation for the extreme attention to detail on the other side of the spectrum? I guarantee that only a few have the ability to create something "photorealistic ". It's the ones that can do it without additional aid ( projecting or tracing ) that are impressive. To those who think Art is subjective? God how I wish that there was a benchmark towards quality like there is in, say, basketball. " The way that player missed the basket with a style and grace was phenomenal!!! Bill, we will have to give him the 3 points for a daring use of double dribble. "

Going back to working on my non-traced piece of photorealism now. Good night, and good luck.
 
Old 01 January 2006   #8
Hmmm,....

Where reality stops, we take you further.

All the best work I have seen is so much more than real,... it's fantasy-tastic!

My 2 euro cents
Cheerio Chris
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Old 01 January 2006   #9
Wow if I wanted a portrait done that is who I would go to .
__________________
"If you would stop twitching so much and shut up maybe you would learn something" -- My third grade teacher
 
Old 01 January 2006   #10
Gottfried Helnwein is pretty amazing too.
http://www.helnwein.org/werke/leinw.../image2093.html
 
Old 01 January 2006   #11
So its not a photo? If its a real work, I like it, but I think is too much is realistic...
__________________
\/ O L T /\
 
Old 01 January 2006   #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by finearts2

if you have people support Dadaism on the one extreme, should there not be a appreciation for the extreme attention to detail on the other side of the spectrum? I guarantee that only a few have the ability to create something "photorealistic ". It's the ones that can do it without additional aid ( projecting or tracing ) that are impressive.


That is my problem with it, 'It's the ones that can do it without additional aid ( projecting or tracing ) that are impressive'

Its all about the PERSON being impressive through the art, not the art being interesting in its own right. Its so superficial and vein.

Take a look at them all standing round the painting. It makes me sick. I dont know any credible artist that would pose around their painting like that.

Last edited by matmonkfish : 01 January 2006 at 09:50 AM.
 
Old 01 January 2006   #13
My cousin god help him can not draw with his imaginion one bit , but when it comes to being able to do life drawing and looking at photos he blows my mind. Most people wouldnt call this art but in my opinion I think so, I just guess you have to see the tears coming from someones eyes when you give them a sketch or a painting of there children or a loved one. It just feels like more than a photo.You can feel the love and care that went into it.
But really most artists main point of making something photorealic is to improve your skills. But then again i am the kind of person that thinks everything is art , from the excitement you see on a childs face looking at a toy in a shop to the way someone sits. So me personally i have no problem with someone doing a photorealistic painting with no extra imagination envolved.
__________________
 
Old 01 January 2006   #14
I don't see the point of transforming a photo into a painting to make it look as exactly as possible like the photo - I mean you ALREADY have the photo ?? And the process also how this painted copy was made makes absolutely no difference to me. If it's overpaint, tracing or just looking at a reference photo beside you - it's all the same to me.

There are people who make a living from making very exact copies of old master paintings. What do you think about that ? I mean what's the point of that also ? If you are that good at painting, why not do something of your own ?
 
Old 01 January 2006   #15
If you look at the work of Richard Estes or of Chuck Close, they both use photos as reference, but the end piece is completely different. Their techniques are different but both create something that when you look at their work, it is more real ( if you understand what I am implying ) than someone who just traces a photo.

Beckman doesn't use a camera at all, he stands in front of a wire grid and uses that as his guide to correct himself if his proportions are off.

The arguement of use of a camera is silly in my opinion. I can do a portrait of someone without using a camera ( most of my portrait work is done in sittings ) but if I create something that is "photorealistic " without using the camera, would the artwork now be inferior because it looks looks a photograph?

Heck the question is, why should anyone create something that looks like the subject they are working from when the subject is already there? Why is taking a photo of someone better than painting someone in a photorealistic style?

Discuss
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.