They are very (very) clever, but I cannot help thinking, what is the point? Most of them seem to be being copied from photos, so other than a display of the artists skill, you could just produce a nice print. Art for art's sake? The only exception seems to be the sculpture which actually does something interesting with it. Making something that you couldn't do in the darkroom.
When we used to try and do this kind of thing at college we would get marked down :-)
I agree with @harveyzone , great demonstration of technical skill, but for the most part the artists are copying a photograph; very likely some of them overlay their work with a transparency of the original photo. Almost like advanced paint-by-numbers. I have a projector; may try this sometime (project an image of my dog Bennett onto a board and fill in the colors with paint) :)
I was thinking the same thing as @harveyzone and @grizzlysghost with the added thought of Why spend that much TIME on something like this? Of the images, I preferred the ones where it was more obviously not a photograph: the sculpture for sure, and also the one that was on carbon paper.
Thank you for sharing. It would be wonderful to stand in an art gallery and get up close to see the detail....look for the brush and pencil strokes. They are not images you could just walk by without a second or third glance!
I was expecting to see comparisons of art and the photograph the paintings/art were based on after reading some of the comments, so I was pleasantly surprised to see that most of them were not based on photographs at all. I think the point of the artists doing what they are doing is not to make their art look like a photograph as much as it is to make their art 3 dimensional and realistic. I especially liked the elephant
@harveyzone@grizzlysghost@m9f9l
I think that everyone agrees that these show incredible technical skill that relatively few painters possess, but before you start thinking that they are just a copy of a photograph you should try to find a place to view works like this in person. Using oil paint and indirect painting techniques, works like this, when seen in person, glow in a way that the best photographic print can never achieve. That being said, not all photorealistic paintings are good just like not all photography is good. You can not judge a painting on a computer screen, to truly appreciate a painting you have to see the original in person.
Photorealism and Hyperrealism are as legit of artistic endeavor as photography or abstract expressionism.
@soren I partly agree. Having seen them at various galleries and exhibitions over the years I too have sat in awe at the skill involved, having never been close to good enough to reproduce it, but still, ultimately, cannot see the point.
The question of art is, as always, how does an image (or other creation) affect the viewer? What does the image 'say? What does it challenge? How does it make you think? The core way that these images challenge (in my opinion), above and beyond how an equivalent photographic print would do, is the surprise of the medium used when first appearance is that of a photo and the skills of the artist. The actual content of the images is fairly run-of-the-mill for a decent photographer.
And then, finally there is an irony that, after spending weeks creating such works, they are mostly going to be seen reproduced in photographs in books and on the internet. :-)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
When we used to try and do this kind of thing at college we would get marked down :-)
Thank you so much for sharing..
I think that everyone agrees that these show incredible technical skill that relatively few painters possess, but before you start thinking that they are just a copy of a photograph you should try to find a place to view works like this in person. Using oil paint and indirect painting techniques, works like this, when seen in person, glow in a way that the best photographic print can never achieve. That being said, not all photorealistic paintings are good just like not all photography is good. You can not judge a painting on a computer screen, to truly appreciate a painting you have to see the original in person.
Photorealism and Hyperrealism are as legit of artistic endeavor as photography or abstract expressionism.
Just my 2cents
The question of art is, as always, how does an image (or other creation) affect the viewer? What does the image 'say? What does it challenge? How does it make you think? The core way that these images challenge (in my opinion), above and beyond how an equivalent photographic print would do, is the surprise of the medium used when first appearance is that of a photo and the skills of the artist. The actual content of the images is fairly run-of-the-mill for a decent photographer.
And then, finally there is an irony that, after spending weeks creating such works, they are mostly going to be seen reproduced in photographs in books and on the internet. :-)