Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6
Results 66 to 77 of 77
  1. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,272 Times in 887 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vapsman88 View Post
    Wow!

    What an amazing hate thread. Can you slam any other artists?
    I'll slam Damien Hirst!

    He's not really an artist-- he's more like an art-director-of-chopped-up-animals. . .

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Kamber Parrk For This Useful Post:


  4. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #68
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11,381
    Thanks
    3,787
    Thanked 5,842 Times in 3,947 Posts
    I think someone hasn't read the whole thread.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    I actually have I just decided to add a few examples of people on deviantart whose photorealistic stuff is even better than in the examples given here IMO.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,492
    Thanks
    2,462
    Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,550 Posts
    It is not really better, it is all very meticulous but brainless copies of the photos. Natashakinaru even copies lens distortion with the same mindless automatism as she does everything else.

    There is no art in these, just technical skill. Compare them to Bama's painting above: it interprets and exaggerates to create character, instead of copying. There is no character, or artistic style, in those copies, beyond what the photographer had done - just boring repetitiveness. The real artist, when there is any presence of an artist's eye in the work, is the photographer. Whoever copied the picture in pencil is just a copyist.

    I really wish now for someone to analyze what this technique of pencil copying does to values and texture, and create a Photoshop filter that would make any photo look the same. Perhaps then this kind of wasteful stupidity will not happen so often.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    So there is this other girl and she posted some of her WIPs:

    http://tanyamusatenko.deviantart.com...F28663408&qo=8
    http://tanyamusatenko.deviantart.com...28663408&qo=41

    So does this show that she, in essence, works as a scanner+printer? I mean, JD Hillberry's method, for example, is quite different: it relies on understanding of forms and light\shadow etc (as far as I am concerned), he puts layer above the layer, and so it looks like he is actually drawing; whereas her work resembles mere scanning pixel after pixel for value and then reproducing it on the paper.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #72
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11,381
    Thanks
    3,787
    Thanked 5,842 Times in 3,947 Posts
    That is still a photocopy of a photo - nothing added or taken away. Fine for a study when learning to draw what you see, but nothing else.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 23 Times in 18 Posts
    I don't get it, whats the point in learning to draw if your going to copy a photo down to every last freckle, eyelash and pimple, Boooorrring!!! take away the photo, and then what are they going to do. Michelangelo's quick sketches and doodles have more feel, flow, vitality, life in them then all off these mindless photo rendering copyist could ever try to achieve.

    Oh well if there's a market for it, someones got to do it. I'll stick to trying to use my imagination.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  11. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    790
    Thanks
    672
    Thanked 379 Times in 256 Posts
    Really, before photography was invented hyper-realism was considered in a much better light. I think the problem most people have with it now is the "uncanny valley" issue. We find things that are so close to perfection unsettling because the imperfections are all we see and it is harder too know what is wrong with these kind of images... generating a sense of dislike. For most art there are cues that help us suspend our disbelief. Without these cues we find it harder to accept the implied reality.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  12. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 52 Times in 34 Posts
    You may be right. But, I think part of it, too, is the distinction between hyper-real and photo-real. Photos have their own inherent distortions, and translating those into a painting just gives you a hyper-realistic picture of a photograph, not of the photograph's subject. As opposed to something like the Bama picture above, or any Van Eyck painting, or the various insane tromp l'oeil genre paintings, which are hyper-realistic and hyper-detailed, but don't look like photos.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  13. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 23 Times in 18 Posts
    I don't have a problem with hyper realism, there are definitely awesome well rendered drawings out there, just look at the old Ateliers very well done drawings from life, even the Bargue cast drawings are awesomely rendered, but they never brought out the family photo album to draw, It's the flat image of the photo that just makes the drawing look ahhhhhh flat, like the images that maxpancho posted well rendered but oh so boring even kind of creepy.

    I use photo ref all the time but I do try to interpret my own way.

    Edit: heres some of my drawings from photo ref, HERE of course I want to get way, way better then this in the future, dear I say it, draw even closer to the photo ref lol, but I do believe less detail adds to the drawing more then an over rendered photocopy drawing will ever do.

    Last edited by halfdolla; January 6th, 2014 at 06:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  14. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I might be a little late on this thread so please excuse my tardiness BUT I have been discussing this at length with a friend of mine and I'd like to weigh in a bit. I was initially impressed with Mr. Tank. After a little while the amazement of his work wore off and I moved on to other artistic interests. I have seen how he accomplishes his pictures and although rendered very well his method to me feels a bit sterile and mathematical. I think his work appeals to the general masses who don't have an interest in the actual art of artistic expression they just like pictures. Theres a quote I read when I first was learning guitar and I think it's somewhat applicable here "The only people who care WHAT you play are musicians,everybody else just wants to hear music...."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6

Members who have read this thread: 4

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook