So then what was all that talk about conveying messages and emotion? Conveying them to whom?My friend, why, why why.. would you want to impress the layman? Drawing.. the creation of art, the privilege of self expression, is for you, and no one else.
I understand that you're probably making a distinction between 'expressing' (to others) and 'impressing', but it's not exactly coming across like that. Besides, I don't think there's too much wrong in wanting an occassional thumbs-up for a piece that you're pleased with or proud of.
Especially if you're trying to flog it.
Yes, the only one "creating" is Darrel Tank. Unfortunately what he's creating are "meat cameras".
Look among the avatars at the top of the page for MindCandyMan, Dorian, and EranWebber for examples of rendering in the service of an artistic sensibility, instead of just for its own razzle-dazzle.
"Three's so little room for error."--Elwell
What an amazing hate thread. Can you slam any other artists?
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.
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.
So there is this other girl and she posted some of her WIPs:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 07:03 PM.
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...."