Photorealism in traditional art

#1

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

Page

#2

uh oh… I guess you missed the HUGE thread about this already… It was not very pretty :argh:

But I think this rocks…

#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.’

[font=Verdana][size=2]This ‘interpretation’ based on the artists ‘vision’ is remarkable simlilar to exact reality of a professional photo session.
[/size][/font]

#4

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?

#5
#6

let’s hope one day this marathon process replaces the cumbersome technology of photography

#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.

#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

#9

Wow if I wanted a portrait done that is who I would go to :D.

#10

Gottfried Helnwein is pretty amazing too.
http://www.helnwein.org/werke/leinwand/group130/image2093.html

#11

So its not a photo? If its a real work, I like it, but I think is too much is realistic…

#12

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.

#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.

#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 ?

#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 :slight_smile:

#16

The subject is already there, but we want to create a picture of that subject as it is right now - particularly if the subject is a living creature who will change with the time - like if it was for a portrait of a person.

Do you want a photo of that person or do you want a painting that looks like a photo ? You will get exactly the same image - you can decide if you want a silverprint or oil on canvas, but the final picture will look exactly the same - only oil on canvas takes much more time and is much more expensive.

My personal opinion is that there is no sense making a photorealistic painting if it’s a simple portrait of a real person posing for you if you don’t have any somewhat sophisticated intellectual ideas behind it. If it’s just a simple portrait with a nice pose and a good lighting, I think it’s the job of a photographer. If I were to order a painting on canvas, I would expect that painting to have something that a photo wouldn’t have. The image in the first post here is a very good example.

#17

What about those matte painting artists? aren’t they photorealistic painters as well only for background environment?

But yeah, if it’s just to copy from a photo I agree, not much point to it except to show people you got some mad skill… But it’ll be awesome if you can paint some character out of your imagination and make it photorealistic, it’ll be like modelling in 3D to make photorealistic stills.

#18

I like this, becouse the art is traditional, not CG.

#19

A few of us at school talk about Dru’s work. He is indeed excellent at his craft. Also consider that he has been doing it for a while. He also has classes and workshops. He is also known throughout the airbrush community. The way he achieves great amount of detail is that he paints with opague paints and uses exacto knife for the hair mostly and electric eraser. And I can believe that he did it in 70 hrs. I do caricatures and have about 20-30mins to wip’em out!!!
The airbrush is indeed very handy tool I must say.

I think it is incredible to see someone do something hyper photorealism. But that is not the direction I want to go with my art though!:wise:

#20

It’s fine to not enjoy creating or viewing photorealistic artwork, but it seems silly to deem it as having less artistic merit. Ultimately, the point of all art of any sort is enjoyment on the part of the artist. Deep down, that is the point of the artist’s work–no one spends hours upon hours perfecting his or her skills if he or she doesn’t enjoy the art itself, on some level. If this man enjoys the process of trying to mimic a photograph as closely as possible, I see nothing wrong with that. As long as the artist is keeping his overall priorities straight in life, that is.

I wouldn’t dream of going to such lengths to do what a good camera can do in 1/252000 of the time, but who are we call it less artistic than creating something from scratch?