When is a painting not a painting?

[Imn2xLr8n]

An artist friend of mine, who shall remain unnamed (but you know him), prints paint on canvas, hand-embellishes them, and calls them original paintings. Am I wrong? Shouldn't paint on a painting be applied by hand (or by your trunk, if you happen to be a pachyderm)? Isn't a work of art on which part is printed and part is painted considered mixed media? This artist argues that no definition of "painting" specifies how the paint is to be applied, only that the work is done using paint (as opposed to ink, I guess). Personally, I think he's being deceptive and dishonest, but I'm not an artist, collector, critic, or lawyer. What you you think? Is he a fraud?

[Black Spot]

Is what he prints his own work? If it is then he has the ultimate control over it.

[CCThrom]

There may or may not be a legal definition of 'painting' I don't know... but in my book, a hand-embellished a giclee print is not a painting. Can I sell photocopies of my drawings as if they were the real thing? How about if I hand color them? Maybe some would, but personally I wouldn't. If I hand colored a photocopy that is exactly how I would sell it.

At one time, it was the reproductibility issue is what separated prints from other kinds of media. But nowadays, reproductability is sooo much easier. And digital art throws a big wrench into the works too. You still do the drawing, or the painting yourself, but there is no unique physical object.

Still it's kind of gray isn't it? Most of the painters I know clearly mark the giclee prints-on-canvas as such, and price them accordingly lower.

[jhgoforth]

/shrug I bet if you asked critics/lawyers/artists/buyers you would get 4 very different definitions of what a 'painting' is. And that alone tells you more than a solid answer ever will. ;p

[Grief]

...does it have paint?

[SoufMeng]

Imo your both wrong.
You by making such a fuss about the defintion of a painting; it may very well be considered mixed media but oh well...
And i think he gets defensive because he has the feeling that by saying its not a painting you say that its not a work of art either or that its dismissive in some way.
So make it clear to him that you're only nit-picking on the name of his medium not on the content.
However about the last bit of your post you should advise him that if those paintings are to be involved in some commercial dealing of any sort, he should be very accurate and transparent about his medium and process with the clients.
If he just wont listen then you can yell at him.

[Elwell]

I'm not an artist, collector, critic, or lawyer.
Then what are you, and why do you care?

[Imn2xLr8n]

Black Spot: Q: "Is what he prints his own work?"

No, he usually prints old photographs, mostly celebrities.

"If it is then he has the ultimate control over it."

Yes, but should he try to pass them off as original paintings when they're printed and then painted over.

CCThrom: Thanks for the info. This artist would never use the term "giclee" to describe his works, but maybe that's really what he's starting with. Much of what he does is obviously printed (apparently from photographs), and not "painted" with the artist's hands.

jhgoforth: True.

Grief: Yes. P - A - I - N - T. Paint. The question is: Does the paint alone make it a "painting" if the paint is printed on like ink, rather than brushed on the way paint is usually applied? I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

S.M: Yes, you are right. The reason I am nit-picking is because there are galleries offering these works as "original paintings" (as per the artist's description), and sooner or later, someone is going to realize that they really aren't (or may not be) paintings. That may be putting an unjust liability on the galleries.

Elwell: You're implying that because you don't know who I am or why I'm asking this question, that I shouldn't have bothered with the post. This isn't about me. But I will say that I do care (for whatever reasons), just as you cared enough to respond without really contributing anything. This forum probably won't accomplish anything other than to increase my own knowledge, and maybe that of some other readers. Maybe you're saying that I should ignore the issue completely, and get on with my life. But now I want to know how far you'll continue with this thread if you DON'T care. Or maybe you DO care. Please don't try to become my enemy. I've never met you, and I have no quarrels with you. If you can help, please do. If you have some knowledge of the subject that we don't, I'm begging you to share it with us. If not, you're free to respond in any way you choose. But I would ask that you not interfere with what could be a productive discussion among the rest of us. Thanks very much, and God bless you.

[mugenTaichou]

Well, here where I live, exist that kind of painter (which firstly prints on canvas then paints). Those are mostly hyper realistic paintings, although he does have a really hand-painted paintings (lol at the words).

Isn't the art about your own interpretation of living and non-living world around you? Isn't it about your artistic signature that represents your style and its recognized? Sorry, but 'previously printed image on canvas' is almost as tracing... Shouldn't artist practice their own way out?
I really don't get that kind of artwork. Even myself as nothing-special-artist would never go for that.

If I ever went buying something realistic, I would go to a bloody print-shop and print it, than to pay huge sum of money for something of same size and same concept, but with signature ^^

[Asatira]

Black Spot: Q: "Is what he prints his own work?"

No, he usually prints old photographs, mostly celebrities.

"If it is then he has the ultimate control over it."

Yes, but should he try to pass them off as original paintings when they're printed and then painted over.

CCThrom: Thanks for the info. This artist would never use the term "giclee" to describe his works, but maybe that's really what he's starting with. Much of what he does is obviously printed (apparently from photographs), and not "painted" with the artist's hands.



From what you describe, it doesn't fit the normal expectation of a painting. It sounds more like mixed media, and should be identified as such. I'm not even going into the troubling grey area of using celebrity photos that may or may not be his. But yeah, since he's making no pretensions about these pieces being painted over photographs/prints, it's either a mixed media or collage.

[Elwell]

Black Spot: Q: "Is what he prints his own work?"

No, he usually prints old photographs, mostly celebrities.

"If it is then he has the ultimate control over it."

Yes, but should he try to pass them off as original paintings when they're printed and then painted over.

CCThrom: Thanks for the info. This artist would never use the term "giclee" to describe his works, but maybe that's really what he's starting with. Much of what he does is obviously printed (apparently from photographs), and not "painted" with the artist's hands.

jhgoforth: True.

Grief: Yes. P - A - I - N - T. Paint. The question is: Does the paint alone make it a "painting" if the paint is printed on like ink, rather than brushed on the way paint is usually applied? I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

S.M: Yes, you are right. The reason I am nit-picking is because there are galleries offering these works as "original paintings" (as per the artist's description), and sooner or later, someone is going to realize that they really aren't (or may not be) paintings. That may be putting an unjust liability on the galleries.

Elwell: You're implying that because you don't know who I am or why I'm asking this question, that I shouldn't have bothered with the post. This isn't about me. But I will say that I do care (for whatever reasons), just as you cared enough to respond without really contributing anything. This forum probably won't accomplish anything other than to increase my own knowledge, and maybe that of some other readers. Maybe you're saying that I should ignore the issue completely, and get on with my life. But now I want to know how far you'll continue with this thread if you DON'T care. Or maybe you DO care. Please don't try to become my enemy. I've never met you, and I have no quarrels with you. If you can help, please do. If you have some knowledge of the subject that we don't, I'm begging you to share it with us. If not, you're free to respond in any way you choose. But I would ask that you not interfere with what could be a productive discussion among the rest of us. Thanks very much, and God bless you.
I'm not trying to be anyone's enemy. Your initial post was unclear on several points, thanks for the added info.

[DavePalumbo]

Is he a fraud?

I don't know if I'd care if it was a person whos work I know. Since it's only even a hypothetical person (though I do understand, given the nature of your post and what you're driving at, why this person remains anonymous) I really don't care at all.

I will say that I've seen many artists who work with digital and traditional materials to achieve their end result, and I never saw the slightest thing wrong with it. Most that I know of work traditional first and then finish digital (James Jean, Sam Weber, etc.) but I can think of at least one (Dave Seeley) who prints out the in progress digital piece and finishes it with oils.

And then, to add another wrinkle, that are a ton more artists who will make digital drawings or underpaintings and then print them and paint completely over them. Technically, they're still doing exactly what you describe: printing an image and adding paint to it to make a painting. How much change or surface area covered does the definition of a painting require?

ah, but since this artist is working over top found images, what does that mean? I know of another artist who hires other people to do master copies and then paints marks over top and sells them as his own. It's all paint, but most of it done by another person. Is this more or less authentic?

But the real question is, so what? Why is it important to assign a label to this other person's method or work?

[Grief]

But the real question is, so what? Why is it important to assign a label to this other person's method or work?

dave, the same reason we waste time putting our dvds in alphabetical order.

to Imn2xLr8n
let's back up, because my brain works in a very linear fashion and the process requires me to know one thing before i can hypothesize about the end solution.

you don't need to write responses to these:
what is art to you?
are you familiar with the pop-art movement?
what do you think of warhol's process of printing with paints on canvas?
have you seen the endless damned waves of 'pop-art' on e-bay?

it almost seems a rite of passage for artists to do a pop motif for awhile. thats a gross and awful generalization so don't take any stock in it, but it seems the desire to gravitate towards pop style image making has an immediacy which can be quite satisfying as an art maker. to instantly have an idea come across and be able to be understood universally by means of the topical and celebrity status of the subject can be something worth understanding. i've certainly done my share of very graphik stylized representations of iconic heroes of mine, and again with vague internet models to give identity to and cliche' portrayal to a cliche' themetic source of subject.

the means to which you create an image is part of the process of art making. the vessel to which you idea is birthed has a vital role in conveying the concept. it doesn't matter to me if its the most base and crude method of painting, you may see it as cheap, mass produced and requiring no skill.

but those words i used can probably be attributed to the actors he is using as subjects right? perhaps there is a connection between presentation of subject and process to which it is given. i have my own opinions on this, as it can be both a thing of value to an artist, if they use it as a stepping stone for their own ideas... or a crutch where they learn to beat dead horses as a career.

my question still remains, and i feel it wasn't given a cursory gleaning. if it involves paint it is a painting. if it doesn't, just call it a paintery illustration, or latch onto one of the other countless words that are manufactured to put art into meaningless categories. application and means to which the paint is used doesn't matter. if it incorporates other materials i suppose it could more rightly fall in other categories to be more accurate. i forget what exhibition i was at where the artist labeled all his materials as "various shit" on the cards.

if he wants to call his process "mechanikal paint action looping" then let him go for it. it doesn't really matter in the end. superficial titles do not dictate our status as artists. he can bullshit his way into telling everyone he invented this super intense unique process which only he can do and blow steam all day long about how no one understands exactly what he is going for. you shouldnt get tripped up on this sort of thing, as it in all likelihood isn't worth the attention youre giving it.

as others have said what does it matter? if you know its pure bunk, why do you need someone else to reinforce your own opinions? just tell your friend "i don't dig this shit" and move on. if he's at all worth his title as an artist he's not going to blow you off over the opinion of a non-artist telling the truth. if anything the blatant fact that youre not 'getting it' (for lack of better term, sorry) means that he is not succeeding in communicating his work on a more visceral and public level. it seems he has the formula down of subject and process, but has neglected to hone any concept or reason for uniting the dichotomy of the two aspects of art: the product and process.

all the best

[•Lindsay•]

I dislike misleading advertising. Maybe he isn't technically a fraud but he is selling people something they don't think they are buying. His costumers probably don't know that the work is mostly a print of a photo. Since he's using other people's photos that might be a copyright violation.

[Not Pink]

my idea of a painting is a brush with medium applying strokes to a surface, when I say medium, I really mean any medium, I can't remember who it was, but they used to paint using odd things like fruit jellies and jams (one specific piece I remember is an American Flag where he let a curious art-buddy paint a stripe, and accidentally painted a red stripe white lol)

so yeah, to me a painting is "a work of art made by applying multiple strokes with a brush"

I really don't know how you would print with paint onto a canvas, all I imagine is someone putting acrylics in an inkjet and trying to shove a canvas into the paper bin.

if maybe you're talking about screen printing? then yeah, that's an original work, based off of someone else's work (i.e. the picture he used as a reference). it takes serious skill to screen print well, and if he's using it as a tool to block in the the original shapes of color/value, all he's doing is helping himself achieve to be more photo-realistic. I'd say he's using the screen to help with the early step of blocking in, so that he can then use the brush to show more gradients and value changes.

no matter how he does it, if he uses someone else's picture, it's his "original work based on the work of <insert original work's author and the type of work>" remember though, for him to own the copyright to his work, it has to be proved to be original. say if you have a black and white photo of woody allen, and he paints it so photorealistically that it looks exactly like the original picture, it's not his copyright. however, something as easy as changing the color can make it different enough for him to display as his own work (with credit given), but still he cant gain anything from that (except for the ownership) unless he had consent from the original author.

now, this is all to the best of my knowledge from what I've collected from reading copyright bills about 2 and a half years ago, and random legal bits I've gained from school, so take all this legal jargon of mine with a grain of salt.

however, what constitutes what is a painting is subject to opinion.
Here's what Collins Essential English Dictionary has to say:
"1. (n) a picture produced by using paint
2. (v) the art of producing pictures by applying paints to paper or canvas
3. (v) the act of applying paint to a surface"

now like I said, I think a painting needs multiple brush strokes with a medium, but throwing a word into the name changes everything.
EX: a light painting actually uses a camera with a slow shutter speed to capture traces of light that were moving around during exposure.
or a screen print (considered to some as a painting) can be done with absolutely no brushes involved

what makes a painting a painting differs from source to source, what makes the work his is outlined by the law, determined by the amount of change from the original work, consent from the original author, and his process.

[Grief]

so yeah, to me a painting is "a work of art made by applying multiple strokes with a brush"

now like I said, I think a painting needs multiple brush strokes with a medium, .

:(
http://www.monroegallery.com/showcase/images/MH_JacksonPollock2.jpg

[DavePalumbo]

His costumers probably don't know that the work is mostly a print of a photo.

this is exactly why I feel this is a futile discussion though, because you're assuming that the work is "mostly" a print of a photo. Since we don't know the identity of the artist and have no examples of his work, we're all just talking theories and imagining or projecting our own assumptions as to what the actual process and end result are like. You may well be correct, but on the other hand, he may radically change the images, he may cover them completely, he may make them unrecognizable. And even to have it further defined or explained for us, I for one would not be able to make my own personal decision without seeing the work. Without seeing the actual work, we're drawing conclusions based on biased information, being the opinions and descriptions of somebody who disagrees with the method.

[Not Pink]

splatter painting.

like I said, one word makes a huge difference. :)

it's very square and rectangle with what is and isnt a painting. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. A splatter painting is a painting, but a painting isn't splatter paint.

[Grief]

splatter painting.

like I said, one word makes a huge difference. :)

it's very square and rectangle with what is and isnt a painting. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square. A splatter painting is a painting, but a painting isn't splatter paint.

three is a number, but all numbers aren't three
bob is a man, but all men aren't bob.
car is a vehicle, but not all vehicles are cars.
i get it, i get it.

"oh this is an action field drip painting, but this one is a drip field action painting, a world of difference!"

[Ilaekae]

Applying any pre-existing image or element to a surface in addition to paint is considered Mixed-Media. It doesn't matter if it's a xerox of your own work, a transfer of a printed piece or a piece of paper (collage). Period.

On the other hand...

If you make a rubber or wooden "block," put paint on it and print it to your canvas, or just simply use your own hand dipped in paint, or even an object you found, like a piece of wood, your big sisters left boob, or a dead fish, and there is other paint applied in the standard way, it's called a painting, as bizarre as it sounds. It's because there is no limit to what tool you can use to apply paint to a painting. As long as the thing you use to print isn't left glued to the canvas, it's a painting. Leave the dead fish stuck to the canvas and it's mixed media.

[•Lindsay•]

this is exactly why I feel this is a futile discussion though, because you're assuming that the work is "mostly" a print of a photo. Since we don't know the identity of the artist and have no examples of his work, we're all just talking theories and imagining or projecting our own assumptions as to what the actual process and end result are like. You may well be correct, but on the other hand, he may radically change the images, he may cover them completely, he may make them unrecognizable. And even to have it further defined or explained for us, I for one would not be able to make my own personal decision without seeing the work. Without seeing the actual work, we're drawing conclusions based on biased information, being the opinions and descriptions of somebody who disagrees with the method.Well, that's true. My mind jumped to other giclee prints I have seen being sold as paintings, but for all I know these particular artist is different.

[Aphotic Phoenix]

I'm interested in the method he uses to print in paint as well. (Took a lot of printmaking courses)

Printmaking is a bit anal about what is considered a "print", but I really can't think of any combo of methods we'd consider a "painting"...I created a method for myself where I could paint qouache on smooth mylar with my own design penciled on the reverse (for easier reproduction), but I didn't consider that a painting...nor did I repaint my print (then it wouldn't be a "print").

(Oh, and since xerox's were mentioned...there is a neat technique in which you can use xerox copies as a printing plate. Something about the way that gum of arabic reacts with the toner)

[Grief]

I'm interested in the method he uses to print in paint as well. (Took a lot of printmaking courses)

Printmaking is a bit anal about what is considered a "print", but I really can't think of any combo of methods we'd consider a "painting"...I created a method for myself where I could paint qouache on smooth mylar with my own design penciled on the reverse (for easier reproduction), but I didn't consider that a painting...nor did I repaint my print (then it wouldn't be a "print").


yeah you just described a monotype print.
if you add hand touches to a print it becomes a monoprint. they are still technically prints by all means, but must be labeled outside of any edition (as edition prints must have the same registration). monoprints retain a fixed matrix of an image that can be re-used.

print-making is so cool, i really wish there were more people out there with a firey obsession for it.


(Oh, and since xerox's were mentioned...there is a neat technique in which you can use xerox copies as a printing plate. Something about the way that gum of arabic reacts with the toner)

photocopies are amazing, acetone and image transfers with toner copies are too much fun.

also if you get really into screen printing you can use rice based wall paper paste as not only a ink body (i'd have to check my notes, as brand does matter), but as a means to transfer toner off of paper into the mesh (which can then be reversed with screen filler and washed out, and reversed again with photo-emulsion). the art of printmaking lends itself not only to thinking in layers, but finding creative ways to work in reduction and addition, the possibilities to which the artist can manipulate the stencil is far more than people give it credit for.

sorry i could talk all day about how exciting printing is.

[Aaron Death]

This whole thread simply freaked me out, especially that splatter paint thingie(when he just said multiple strokes), anyway I always feel disgusted by this kind of pop art/experimental art. seems just like fraud to me.

[CCThrom]

I think DavePalumbo got it right... without specific examples, all we're responding to is our own assumptions. I certainly made an assumption... that the OP was describing a Thomas Kinkade-esque operation... high quality print, few dabs of paint, and voila - an "original artwork" that's 95% the same as all the others in that series. May not be the case though.

[RyerOrdStar]

Is this artist paying the photographer for the photographs he uses?

[Imn2xLr8n]

Sorry for the long response...

mugenTaichou: Thanks! I appreciate your integrity.

Asatira: Thank you!

Elwell: Thanks!

DavePalumbo: "Why is it important to assign a label to this other person's method or work?"

Because artists often want to sell their paintings, and if they do that through a gallery, the gallery almost always needs to label the art in order to sell it. The gallery must represent the art for what it truly is, and not attach a label that leads collectors to believe that the value is higher than it really is.

Otherwise, you are right, and thanks!

Grief : "...if he wants to call his process 'mechanikal paint action looping' then let him go for it. it doesn't really matter in the end.

In the long run, it may not matter because the truth will likely have been sorted out. But in the short term, it does matter if the collector is told they are buying a painting, then later discover it really isn't. They're likely to feel like they've been deceived, had, taken, duped, ripped off. They'll want their money back. Any publicity like that could destroy an otherwise reputable gallery, but do little harm to the artist.

"why do you need someone else to reinforce your own opinions?"

I'm learning about art. I want to learn more, and I want to know what other people believe, especially artists. If I am wrong, I trust you will all straighten me out. I believe that's exactly what you're doing and I appreciate it.

Linzoy: Thanks! The copyright issue is a whole different story. Usually between the artist and the copyright owner. If the copyright owner notifies a gallery that there's an infringement, the gallery generally removes the art immediately. Once the art is sold, I don't know how it's resolved.

Not Pink: Thanks! Lots of good information. But let's put the subject, copyright, "original", and other issues aside, and speak only about the mechanics. The definitions of painting, including your example, say nothing of how the paint is to be applied. According to our mystery artist, the application is irrelevant. This is where I disagree with him, but I can't support my argument because I can't seem to find any authority that specifies the application method. When we hear the word painting, most of us envision an artist applying paint onto the support using a brush (or knife). If we see a printing press, we consider it a print, even if paint is somehow used. If it's a silkscreen, it's still a print, isn't it? If it's a silkscreen, and thre artist paints over it, it could be called a hand-embellished or hand-painted silkscreen. But it is deceptive to call it a painting. I believe it is, and some of you agree.

BTW, aren't you...no, probably not.

DavePalumbo: You may be right. But I think we're all distracted with other factors, and don't need to be. It really doesn't matter who the artist is. It could be any artist. And it doesn't matter what the subject is, whether it's an original, etc.

"we're all just talking theories" Yes. That's what I intended. I'm not going to try to change the artist in any way.

Grief: Does an "action field drip painting" have a higher value than a "drip field action painting". If so, is it ethical for you, as an artist, to tell me, the collector, that the work of art you're selling me is an action field drip painting when it is, in fact, a drip field action painting. The key here is the value of the two. If there's a significant difference, as there generally is between a painting and a print, there is a "world of difference" to the collector who feels he lost his money. Am I wrong?

Ilaekae: Thanks! I agree.

aaron death: Thanks for drawing!

CCThrom: You're close. But not "original artwork". I'm not concerned with whether the artist in this thread is creating "originals" or not. Just whether they are "paintings". I think the question has been answered.

Since you raised it, are Kinkade's paintings true "paintings"?

Thanks very much to all of you for your contributions!

[Imn2xLr8n]

RyerOrdStar: Many of the photographers are dead, but many others are still working. This may deal with copyright and "original" issues, but will not define the true medium.

[mugenTaichou]

I'm interested in the method he uses to print in paint as well. (Took a lot of printmaking courses)

Printmaking is a bit anal about what is considered a "print", but I really can't think of any combo of methods we'd consider a "painting"...I created a method for myself where I could paint qouache on smooth mylar with my own design penciled on the reverse (for easier reproduction), but I didn't consider that a painting...nor did I repaint my print (then it wouldn't be a "print").

(Oh, and since xerox's were mentioned...there is a neat technique in which you can use xerox copies as a printing plate. Something about the way that gum of arabic reacts with the toner)

It's not that kind of printmaking. He uses computers and printers to apply photo or something on canvas. Then he paints over.

But as fellow graphic artist, I think hand-made prints can be really combined with painting. :)

[CCThrom]

The key here is the value of the two. If there's a significant difference, as there generally is between a painting and a print, there is a "world of difference" to the collector who feels he lost his money.
This is the crux of the issue isn't it? What the buyer THINKS they're getting.

I think the question has been answered.
Sounds like it... and I think I'm understanding your question... I'll go on record & back to my first reply... as far as I'm concerned, a worked-over print is different than a painting and should not be sold as such.

QUALIFIED... because it depends entirely on just HOW much working-over he does. For example, I sometimes scan and print my pencil lines as a way of resizing and transferring my pencils to another surface for painting. And I see no problem there... same as using carbon transfer, lightbox, projector, or even a pounce wheel.

What I'm saying is IF this artist paints over the print to such an extent that it completely / near completely obscures the print, then I guess I would call it a painting. It just has a different sort of "underpainting".

On the other hand, if the print still shows through and is still "part of" the final product, then I'd call it mixed-media, monoprint perhaps, but not a painting. But it's still very gray...

Coz on the other OTHER hand, I have certainly seen many paintings hanging in museums that freely incorporate prints, collage material, found objects, whatever, and they're still called paintings... unless they clearly step over the fuzzy border into assemblage or mixed-media.


Since you raised it, are Kinkade's paintings true "paintings"?
Clearly the original painting is a painting. As far as I'm concerned, the embellished prints are embellished prints. Really the question comes down to whether or not he's being deceptive in his marketing practices, and that I can't say one way or another. I mean, I have no desire to buy a Kinkaid, so I have no idea whether the "production-line" works are SOLD as paintings or not. Certainly his customers seem happy...

But as fellow graphic artist, I think hand-made prints can be really combined with painting.
Absolutely! I'm definitely not trying to knock experimental work here.

[LuisNCT]

I think he's painting, of course... but not doing an original painting if some part of the process can be serialized (printing the image)

[J Wilson]

I'm not an artist, collector, critic, or lawyer.

It's very hard to form an opinion based on what we've heard in my opinion. You're stating that you aren't an artist, collector, or critic. I take this to mean that maybe you don't really know all that much about art. It might surprise you to know that a great many artists use photos in one way or another. Most don't paint directly over them, but that may not make much of a difference in the end. The photo might well just be a shortcut, and all of the real artistic part of the painting takes place in the painting stage. This isn't that unusual.

You claim we all know know him. That may be an a huge assumption, but assuming it's true I'd guess an artist with that level of fame is certainly doing more than "embellishing a photo" because if the art was mostly the photo most people wouldn't be that interested in the final product. Many many artists can emulate photo quality work. I'm guessing he's "embellishing" it in ways that are a genuine artistic addition, even if you think he's cheating people some how.

[Imn2xLr8n]

"...maybe you don't really know all that much about art. It might surprise you to know that a great many artists use photos in one way or another."

You're right. I'm very new to the visual arts. But, no, it wouldn't surprise me (that artists use photos). I've learned enough to know that the camera obscura dramatically changed art forever, and the tricks have progressed since then. But the camera obscura didn't leave an impression on the canvas, so it was used as a tool in an effort to perfect human perception. I would never try to place a limit on the tools an artist uses, but I would hope that artists are honest about their work, and label them in a way that is not deceptive.

"...we all know him. That may be an a huge assumption, but...'

Right again. I exaggerated (but not by much). Again, I don't want to make it about this particular artist, but more about how others, particularly other artists, would label a technique I vaguely described, and how a painting should be defined.

"...if the art was mostly the photo most people wouldn't be that interested in the final product."

You would think...

"I'm guessing he's 'embellishing' it in ways that are a genuine artistic addition..."

Yes, he is.

Thanks again to all of you!

[entdroid]

Well I don't know how is it in this particular case, but the following came to mind that could be used as an example:
Nicolas Uribe many times paints over prints of classical paintings (such as http://www.uribearts.com/p7hg_img_1/middlesize/272.jpg ). In his site, where he states the media of those, it does say "Mixed Media", where other works produced differently say "Oils on Canvas" or whatever medium they were made with. However, leaving the specification of how are they made out, and purely as a noun, I would still call the objects themselves "paintings" (as in "this is a painting by Nicolas Uribe" even if painted on top of a print). Just my two cents.

[deliciouspeter]

I couldn't clearly understand if he is selling these as original or just calling them original. If he is printing 'old photographs, mostly celebrities' and painting over them, calling them his own, well that's a little deceptive and probably infringing on a copyright in some way. But all sorts of artists use all sorts of methods to make "original" art. Fairey's Obama Hope tracing/stencil is a great example.