I must say that in the example we got here at the top of this thread the photographer did the artwork - those who painted the photo just made an exact copy of another person’s artwork.
I’m not at all against photorealistic art - I even enjoy it very much. But when the output is something that might as well be done with a camera, I find it a bit boring.
c’mon that’s not painted…u must be joking…
…don’t you? :surprised
If it is…I guess it’s a big challenge…but not more. Doing this kind of stuff must be boring.
What’s so bad about challenging yourself to things like this? A ginormous oil painting that looks realistic is quite impressive to look at in my opinion, no matter how it’s done.
Why does looking like a photo suddenly mean it’s substandard? I would love a 6 by 6 foot oil of one of my loved ones!
It’s great for wall art, but maybe not for illustration. I think that’s what the gripe is all about. I think a lot of abstract art is kind of boring story/theme wise, but it LOOKS cool, isn’t that the point of abstract art?
I could make a picture like that.
Step one - take a photo
Step two - make blanks in different areas which will represent progress.
Step three - write how much time one supposedly spent.
That site is so fake it hurts.
If it is true, the only difference that this would make to me is nothing more than the entertaining fact that somebody can do something that most people cant. Like one of those people in Guinness records who can bite their nose or something similar.
The image itself - be it the original photo or the paining, makes no difference in my life. I would have missed nothing if I would have never seen it. To me the image doesnt provoke any thoughts, doesnt bring any thrill, and doesnt carry any special, unusual, or fantastic mood or even a slightest elevation to the state of my mind.
To me, it is simply EMPTY.
It just brings the fact of a rare skill that shows how an empty person/camera looks at an empty subject
However Chiaotzu, your statement shows feelings that are quite the opposite from mine at the site of the same image. And that is what makes life fun and so amazing.
Have a great day.I’m inclined to agree with the above. The image that was produced in the final instance had all the character of a cheap studio photograph. There isn’t any indication, as far as I can tell, of the artists involvement, and though he claims that there are elements that he doesn’t copy directly from the photograph, I can’t see any of them. Artists like Chuck Close, Gerhard Richter, Gottfried Helnwein, and quite a few others produce photorealism which you can define as art. For me, the interest in photorealism lies in how the human eye can be tricked into percieving something as reality. It’s surprising how little detail you need.
On another note, it’s interesting that he doesn’t see photography as an art form. If all a photograph did was slap perfection on a page, then why aren’t we all amazing photographers? I guess there’s no such thing as composition, or a good eye? More so, if photography isn’t art, and all he does is minutely recreate photographs with an airbrush, what does that make him? Certainly not an artist.
Thanks GARjones, as a photographer, that was exactly what I wanted to hear :applause:
By the way Helnwein is one of my great favourites, but I really do consider him a photographer above anything else.
Agree with the three posts above nodnod
From the “finished product” point of view, there are good photos and then there are bad photos. When someone is slavishly copying a particular PHOTOGRAPH, the product is only as good as the original photo. Reproducing a bad photo exactly in a painting will not make an interesting painting/image/whatever. Reproducing an excellent photo exactly… well, the result will look nice for sure, but what’s the point when you already have the beautiful photo?
I mean, if one’s doing it purely for his own personal enjoyment, by all means just do whatever makes him happy; but if one does it with the mindset that it is somehow more superior to the ability to take a (good) photo, imo it’s degrading to photography as an art form.
My two cents.
Agreeing with all 4 posts, it’s degrading to all artists/craftsmanship.
there are many examples of this in the past and will be even MORE in the future with all the digital tools we have now.
again a case of having too much technical ability+fully tooled-up studio and not enough personal creativity.
What a strange and funny thread to read 
I guess most of you have no idea about contemporary art… you know that strange thing that began 80 years ago
Nobody cares what the result is looking like what matters is the process which leads to this result and it is the way it works so for ages now; it is really fun for me to see matt painters or 3d guys calling themselves artists, I know it sounds so cool Yeah! Now I am an artist
but it have nothing to do with art: you, just as me are simple craftsmen and for my part I am really proud of being a craftsman!
However much I hate this statement,… I am afraid you are right!
People do not pay 4 million for Van Gogh’s bar stool because it’s a great barstool,… they are buying a piece of Van Gogh! For investment purposes, and that’s how ridiculous the art world is.
Thank god for industry where something has to actually comunicate, function well and look amazing. I love being a craftsman:buttrock:
Cheerio Chris
Not a clue about contemporary art-spent too much time chewing on airhoses and erasers while huffing ink fumes.
I recently started to learn more airbrushing, and seeing the example is a piece of inspiration. I am by no means that good at airbrushing, but pieces where you copy a photo trying to get that exact same look will force you to learn the steps involved in reproducing it so you can make your own “art”. I always strive to do something that nobody can tell whether its a photo or not, but if they respect what I draw or paint or not I do not care. If the person that creates it wants to call it art, let’em. People call an offset black dot on a canvas art, so let photorealism be art too.
(Sorry–Im not sure what you call the offset circle {art deco?})
Reading this series of posts has been frustrating. Most of all what I’ve seen in this lengthy discussion so far has been a lot of off-the-cuff, reactive discussion about a specific photorealistic painting, and about the concept of photorealism in art in general. As with all internet discussion boards, its posts reflect the emotional, personal feelings of each of you. Each post pretends to be an expert opinion, and each reply to each post attempts to be even more expert than the previous. My guess is that many of you are art students, likely in 3d animation or modeling, while others are perhaps traditional-medium artists. I, myself, am not an artist by training. Instead, I’ve gained my knowledge of visual art indirectly through my studies as an undergrad of English literature. However, I have done enough discussion about art in the past 6 years on a scholarly level that I think I really MUST step in on this one and try to take a stand, not as an expert, as many of you pretend to be, and not reacting from my own personal feelings, but from the knowledge that I’ve been so lucky to have been given through education.
Firstly, you have all inadvertantly entered into a discussion about art that I have actually spent time reading scholastic articles about – the value of photorealism in painting/visual art. That topic, in turn, is a part of a system of thought known as aesthetics, which is a course of study which, in effect, attempts to deal with artistic questions, such as this, with philosophical means. Hence, my suggestion to all of you, before you take yourselfs to be experts, would be to read a general overview of aesthetic theory, which, from what I can gather from all of your largely uneducated posts, has been something you haven’t heard of until now. If you intend to study art in any medium – be it literary, visual, musical, or any other – even a brief brush with aesthetics is absolutely neccessary. For those who haven’t ever even cracked open the table of contents to an aesthetics book, and have made posts prior to this, I am sorry to say that I personally must disregard your opinion, as you really can’t justifiably claim you know what you’re talking about.
That aside, however, I’ll make a few comments about what I’ve learned about photorealistic art, and its history, with hopes of giving a new perspective on its relavence. First, if any of you are as expert as you imply you are by your bold, unadulterated claims, you would have at least browsed an art history book at one point or another, and realized that not so long ago, artists weren’t so privelaged as to have cameras, and as a result “photorealism” was in fact the goal of a majority of artists, who didn’t make money by the same means as the extremely more liberal abstract or semi-abstract (mostly american) artists of the 20th century, but by rendering a likeness of reality which could only be achieved through DECADES of training which often began before what we would now consider a “college” age. A classic example might be Leonardo, who learned to draw with extreme attention to detail not simply because he wanted to show off his skill, but because in his time there was simply no other way to reproduce images of nature. Such detail was neccessary, because of a very obvious fact – art is driven by what the audience NEEDS. For some strange reason, young artists, as I don’t think I’d be so wrong as to assume most of you are, tend to this art is some sort of public service, for which “the public” OWES the artists of the world a great deal. In fact, however, ALL forms of art extend from the NEED of “the public” to be entertained in any way they see fit. Of course, the goal of the artist is often to play with the boundaries that this system has forever imposes, and to challenge its audience to go beyond a state of entertainment alone. However, it is important to understand that for some, photorealism is entertaining, and we as artists of various mediums, MUST understand that, as a unified group, are required to perform this service for others.
After the camera was invented, many artists raised this same question that many of you are pondering in this dicussion. Why go to the trouble of painting a likeness of reality when it can be captured so much more easily with a camera? Many artists took this question to the extreme. Dadaism, as mentioned earlier, is one example, whereas impressionism, cubism, expressionism, and others are further examples. These artists seemed to say through their work that there WAS no point in attempting to replicate an image of reality while a camera could do better. However, the key word in understand all of this is “extreme.” Dadaism in particular (a subject on which I have written several papers, mostly praising it) was perhaps the most extreme reaction to the changes in the art world which occurred around the time the camera was invented, but weren’t simply limited to the change the involved the camera itself.
In order to set example to those of you who think themselves experts of art because they’ve made a few realistic or impressionistic or expressive 3d models, or painted a few interesting paintings, I will discontinue my post here shortly, as I know my knowledge of visual art is limited, and I THINK IT IS WRONG TO PUBLICALLY EXPRESS OPINIONS ABOUT THINGS YOU KNOW LITTLE ABOUT. However, I would suggest reading the book “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” by Betty Edwards, which I read not only to learn to draw with greater skill, but also to learn more about aesthetic theory. The fact of the matter is, the subtleties of learning to draw realistic images are integral components, even to abstract art. Hence, all of this considered, photorealism cannot be so easily dismissed, as its value and its meaning is far deeper than many understand (and, ironically, as I’ve often learned about internet discussion boards, those who are the least qualified to voice an opinion are often the loudest.) Perhaps if you are among those who feel photorealistic art is boring, consider first how much you yourself know about art history,and how modern photorealism fits into. Then consider the fact that maybe part of the reason you see photorealism as “boring” is because you take for granted the fact that rendering an impressive realistic image by hand requires GREAT skill, which has been belittle by modern culture, which can simply “snap-shot” that reality with a $3.00 disposable camera.
I don’t mean to be condescending to all of you in my criticism, but the fact of the matter is very few of you speak the language of art, or even reference any art history knowledge, and as a result I can only assume you’re shooting off the cuff, and on the internet your opinion is truly no more valuable than anyone elses, unless you can support it, especially with academic scholasticism.
Although, to some degree, I find comments interesting from both sides of the argument, having a background, such as myself, in photorealism, and having my bio listed in books such as Les Krantz American Artists: An Illustrated Survey of Leading Contemporary Americans ( which, I might add, you can only be in if invited to by a jury of curators and art critics ) as well as upcoming shows in New York and Paris, my credentials speak quite well for myself. I can only add again to the discussion this thought, I will do what I do, and history will reflect on what I do. Whether positive or negative, anyone can spit on a napkin and call it art, but is it art if no one else thinks so?
Thank you for the interesting forum posts. It is a well looked upon break from my daily workload. 
To reply to mpmumau’s post, I don’t think that your opinion is any more valid. To say that you need to have studied a subject in great detail to voice an opinion on it is a very elitist way of looking at the world. Art in the modern world is public. Who cares about how a work fits into the pantheon of the history of art if it can’t work on it’s own. You can’t assume that everyone in a gallery knows the intricate details of how photorealism reached the stage that it’s at today, or would you simply ban those who aren’t as well read as yourself from appreciating our cultural treasures?
Wow, mpmumau. Your comment is colossally arrogant.
To begin with, you vastly underestimate the CGTalk community. Yes, there are many students here. As their name might imply, students study things, such as art history, aesthetics, and art theory. Many of us are professionals. We make art for a living. We think about art every day. Some of us are farther along that path than others, but all of us are working hard. You should respect that.
Secondly, How dare you say that an individual is only allowed to hold an opinion about art if he/she is as deeply, remarkably well educated about it as you? In your pompous comments, you state, “art is driven by what the audience NEEDS.” Who do you think the audience is? It’s the unwashed masses! It’s the guy up on the telephone pole, fixing cables! It’s the lady with a stroller in the supermarket! People don’t need to have a Ph.D in art theory in order to have an opinion about it. It might not be an informed opinion, but it’s what they’ve got. Furthermore, if people want to expand their knowledge base, isn’t it good for them to participate in a discussion, instead of just being TOLD what their opinion should be from a know-it-all such as yourself?
Third, I don’t think you made a point about the subject at hand, which is photorealism. From what I can gather, all you’ve done is blather on about how much more qualified you are to give an opinion.
If you can't stomach the opinions of the community here, then perhaps you should go find yourself a know-it-all forum.If you look at the rest of the artists website you will find that he is clearly skilled commercial artist. Some might call him simply a craftsman or a technician, but regardless he has a creative job that he gets paid for - something many people wish they could say. I wouldn’t say that his style or esthetic is my taste at all, but 90% of the public would more likely call his work “good art” than a painting hanging in MOMA
Having said that I’m not sure what the purpose of this particular painting is beyond an extreme exercise. The context of the page posted is that he is showing off the techniques he teaches in a portraiture class. Why someone would want an exact painted copy of a generic studio photo is beyond me. And in the commercial art world this would have been a total waste of time. If you are striving for this level of realism for this sort of subject it makes no sense to use a painting instead of photo.