Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
I've found in recent years that my figurative drawings are often confused with photography, you may think this is a good thing and maybe your goal to produce work of that standard. In terms of selling work it can have a possitive or negative effect if your work looks like photography its often overlooked or dismissed. This ability to work in such a way could be used as a possitive if the end image was in some way impossible it would make the viewer think about the subject and question its origins more.Do you work in such a way and if so what kind of reaction do you recieve about your work. The new image Old Smokies is a responce to this in that I wanted to work in a more natural way producing a piece of work thats more impressionistic.
Last edited by uzamaki; July 6th, 2005 at 05:30 PM.
i tend to do paint in photorealism and yes, i have gotten many times people not believing it was my own work, instead insisting its a photo.. even my art teacher cant tell the difference . i havent sold any work but i can see where you may experience some negatives. perhaps this would recieve a better reception in the Lounge?
I'm not too familiar with the photorealist movement which began in the late 60's, but when these artists came about they had very strong intentions with their work, both political and artistic. Do some research. Read up on these artists and see what they have to say.
You might also want to check out the art of Gerhard Richter
To view the art of Dave Sheppard, please visit www.squarewheelstudio.com
In my opinion photoerealism should not be the goal.
If you cant make the difference out between a painting and a photo i choose the photo, because its much cheaper and faster.
It makes no sense immitating a photo-camera
I think photorealisim is very intreaguing as it gives you the skill ofbeing able to see exactly every aspect of the picture. I am new at seeing and it is a wonderful experience to notice what you have taken for granted in the past. I have always daydreamed of being a great artist while doodling when as a child and just started back drawing at the age 39. I would look at the leaves forming when spring started, I would be outside in PE class and daydream of drawing my surroundings and would see all the color and shapes, but when you learn to see, it is more than color and shapes, it's the way that the color and shapes form, come together and create all the beauty, pain, happiness, that an artist sees.
photorealism.. seems pointless. you will lose to a tool with a camera .. you may get one or two patrons who admire your work. The only reason I would ever conduct a photorealistic study would be just to increase my knowledge of the figure so I could manipulate it or stylize it in the future in a more educated way if I saw fit to do so.
The image you are creating is your own, you do not have to adhere to reality.
I am impressed by your abilities. Im more interested in your process than your finish peice.
I agree with Vaejoun the gift all arists have is to twist reality to make it better (or worse) depending on the moods and what not. So when I work I would rather make things look "real" but not photo real, and defintly not abstract. Thats my opinion.
shouldnt this be in the lounge?
I don't spellcheck...
Photorealism definately has its place, but it's just more limiting than anything as far as I'm concerned. For me art is creative. It was thinking that I had to copy things that made me not want to be an artist for years. What's the point? For me art is creating something fresh and interesting from your mind. Obviously your experience, and other artists, and even photographs have their place, but they should all just be in support of something that's creative. I just don't see how closely copying a picture is an admirable skill at all.
the torso drawing posted here has great anatomy and is well rendered, but it's boring. I can see it hanging on the wall at a chiropractor's office (if that's your target market, your aim is dead-on and will sell well).
on the other hand, Ocean Dreams is an excellent image. the composition is a little left of center, but it's a nice surreal fantasy image with good use of highly realistic rendering. in my opinion, I think you should do more work like that. The pet images are good, too. Way better than the average pet portrait.
Photorealism, either being a good thing or bad, its going to be a personal opinion to each individual. Personally, I think photo realism needs to be pushed to new genres(in the painting and fine art worlds), I am kind of sick of seeing the same stuff, city scapes, cars, ect... In most cases, when I see photo realist work, the figures tend to be pretty bad. But that is not the case with yours. In the game worlds and new technology, photorealism keeps getting pushed to higher degrees of realism, even the fantasy stuff. Technique wise, photorealists usually have their techinques mastered. Some photorealism just needs to be a bit more creative. It would be great if photorealsim and surrealism merged together, maybe it has, I don't know of any artists that work that way. It would be cool to see a Giger peice that was photorealistic.
I think it is a good thing, not many people can accomplish it in their works, yes art is a creative thing but who says you cant make it creative and real seeming? there are different genres for art we have concept, realism, abstract, figure, landscape, various things but thats the thing about art, its about you and what you want to do no one else. You have a talent not many can do not even alot of professionals can do so take your talent and make use of it do not listen to others opinions as you should do what makes you happy and you defiently have a good gift
i will say this, you should learn to paint tight before you try to paint loose and flashy..
Photos are much cheaper to buy and it's pointless to recreate something that was captured on camera.
Suzie i do agree with you on being able to see everything that a photo can offer. It is a good way to exercise your eyes. Especially if you are just starting out to be an artist. I wouldn't recommand this type of style for a professional artist because it lacks style and originality. What good is an art piece if nobody can tell if its art or photo? I wouldn't want to hang something on my wall that looks like a photo. I want to impress people who come into my house by seeing something that has a great style, color and mood. Isin't thats what most people are striving for? To have something to be proud? If you want photography there is plenty of it in museums. Now i could see this also shown in museums on this type of art. I think it would be more successful being there.
It's much better to recreate something on photo with style and mood, but not just to recreate it, but to add more or less than what the picture has, to get away from recreating the same exact thing. Get away from the same colors that the picture has, unless its absolutely the colors you were looking to take a picture of and want to use in your work.
Original art work in my opinion sells more than a photo real piece of work, because a buyer will know the difference even if they are no artists... right away. If you are a photographer, i can see how this type of work could inspire someone like that. Most people who knows nothing about art or photography would pass on this type of work in my opinion.
Perfection grows from the imperfection of the human mind
I think that name photorealism have one bad part- photo. From when photography is measure for realistic image??
well photorealism is based on drawing photos..and i think is bad...your handling of medium is awesome..but i think the work would be more interesting if its based on observation of real life, imagination and anatomy(knowledge)..that is the goal..whether you go loose or tight depends on the personality of the artist...compare bouguearau with sargent..neither one could go loose or tight...their figures are both alive,yet they are so diferent in style..you can also tell a raphael figure,a michaelangelo one or even a leonardo..that right there is your own style which develops over time..without losing is naturalness..
.copying a photo is a deadless act..copying from life is so much fun..but yeah photography as reference has its place..i also dont like copying exactly as you see nature..is good for a while to train and sharpening your eye..as many people do in ateliers..but when you become a mindless artist..you just became a human camera...(just like leonardo said do not be a mirror who copies exact images)..i think making art is more an imaginative/creative act than anything..off course using nature as inspiration
Perhaps with your skills you could try something a little new... maybe do this and have it somehow blend into a fantasy background, or do the photorealism, but without the skin(muscles only). You have great skill, there are no problems , and I see some emotion in your drawing. This is still Art and skill. Everyone knows names of famous artists whom used and studied photorealism, though at that time, there wasn't such thing as photography yet(so it wasn't called "photo"realism." hmm, well, I have same idea as person above me, the post above this one Words it Very well. Basically what I was thinking.)
for exercise it helps, but all it helps you do is see everything in a photo. I did photorealistic work for a while till I just felt like a tool, and when I tried to make an image strait from my head or a figure, just came out like crap. Until I took life drawing classes and drew from bridgeman, loomis, other references, ect. then I started to create a visual vocabulary. Also the time it takes to make something look that real, you could have made many more images that help you further push whatever idea you want to convey. The idea is what matters the most in an image, and if it can be conveyed by other media then use it, However if the idea becomes unclear in an image then you failed imo of creating a great piece of art. Actually on another note, if your a texture artist, then it is very helpfull to try and copy the texture various creatures have to a photoreal standard.
Last edited by OptimusDinkus; July 6th, 2005 at 10:24 PM.
It is impressive but will someone please find a large dark room to send all these photorealists to so we can get on with creating.
similar comments are available on request
Brutal crits for today,
regrets for tomorrow
As a side note, from that foreshadow piece, it is a good thing that your not also copying the DOF effect camera's use.
IMO, value of photorealism is most visible and best showcased with unreal subjects. When there is no way to take a photo of something that simply does not exist, no one can mistake it for a photo. It is also the most challenging scenario since the artist cannot copy from a photo and even real life.
Without photorealic artists, we can only see those marvelous lengendary fantasy movie scenes in our dreams.
The images above aren’t as time consuming as you might think. 8-12 hours each and they are A2 in size. Its really good to have this feedback from all of you and I will be looking forward to posting some of my new work soon ^ ^Originally Posted by OptimusDinkus
thats right, they only take a little more than your regular digital painting (in my experience). i see more reward in knowing that i can do it, not whether itll sell or not (though im still in school so i dont have to worry about those things just yet).
Life Nafa Says:
Painting something that you could just take a photo of instead seems best left to a good photographer - I find it a bit pointless, unless it's a technical exercise (so in many cases, not pointless at all).
Painting a piece that looks like a photo of something that's impossible to take a photo of (i.e. because your subject doesn't exist). Now THAT's impressive.
And that's what concept art (and it's sister, matte painting) is about, isn't it? Creating an image of something that doesn't exist?
I have to say that the skill to be able to do photorealism (or hyper-realism or other realismthingies) can be awesomely useful to make up things.
It's so easier to achieve suspension of disbeleive when what you are looking for looks beleiveable.
Say you were doing a pic of a girl with chicken feet in cartoon style, onlookers might find it funny, but if you were to do that realistically, you,d get some :'wtf, is she really like that? is that some kind of mutation?' reactions. That's always good.
Maybe just a subtle twist to an otherwise very conventional pic can make a world of difference.
photorealism aren't copy a photo, photorealism are use perspective and efects distorts like the photos.
Spain have a lot of hiperrealism painters that work from life (check Antonio López) a question, anyone here look in live a photorealism painting? or only talk about "internet pics"? hiperealism paintings in live not look like a photo, this words are "internet slang".
Freeline - http://freelyne.deviantart.com
I reckon that Photorealism is a worthy demonstration of skill, seeing as you can perfectly represent a subject as your eyes percieve and cut your creative mind out of the process.
The fun (and the REAL difficulty) doesn't start until you get cracking with the expressive stuff though and really involve your mind!
I think we all have an idea for a piece before we create it, well most of the time. And my opinion on this is that you should try to achieve the image you see in your head by any means possible. But if the image in your head is a photograph, use a camera. Otherwise its process over piece, if the image is a print or digital picture before you try to render it in my eyes thats a study.
But this whole debate comes down to preference and another opinion of mine is that if the artist can justify the piece to themselves, thats all that matters.