Not a photo, but a digital painting

Impressive.

 

wow a big step up in the lighting, shading, skin tones and hair.

this could mean more realistic CGI for movies and videogames sometime in the near future.

 

They left out the best part.

 

Moustache?

 

Did anyone read it? Its not a digital painting.

 

I did

 

this is really amazing . . . but as the artist stated, you lose so much resolution that it makes the painting look even more realistic . . . still, a pretty exceptional feat . . . I like that he still used some old school techniques such as traditional media to complete the project

 

Wow, I'm amazed that such a phenomenally talented person is such a bigoted, simple-minded moron.

He has no understanding of what photography as art is?
Weird.

 

I don't really find that surprising. I've run across a lot of specialized artists who are arrogant and exclusive about what is and isn't art.

 

Not to mention being hugely hypocritical b/c it's a portrait painting, i.e. a reproduction on canvas, and thus, really no more 'creative' than taking a photo.

 

I didn't see that part . . . that's is a pretty art snobbish, narcissistic statement . . .

but being a fine artist, some photographers come off as BIG time pretentious *****ebags . . . that being said, it doesn't make all photographers bad . . . and doesn't mean that photography isn't a form of art . . .

 

In a way. he's right, sort of, but he might as well criticize himself as what he seems to have done is nothing more than a painstaking replication, it might as well be a camera he's using.

Photography doesn't have the charm freehand drawing does (Look at Andrew Loomis), if it was simple a case of pure replication, there would be need for drawing or painting.

 

Part of his argument against photography was that it's a mechanical reproduction- it has no human element other than basically pushing a button. (I'm guessing at what he would argue.) Therefore what he did was more 'art' because of the human time and hand in the process of making the image itself.

Not that I agree with the above, but his argument had a bit more to it.

 

That's exactly what he's done from the looks of it.

 

in a way, yes he is . . . the photograph is ultimately a technical snap shot of reality, but he's totally disregarding a photographer's vision: lighting, composition, costumes, etc. . . . it's like saying a film isn't a piece of artwork, or lacks creativity . . .

 

Art isn't about technique.
It's self expression.
I've seen countless photographs that, due to the intentionally chosen framing, angle, lighting, development methods and subject, are a billion times more evocative, conceptually stirring and just plain artistic than that mind-blowingly impressive display of prowess.

He's like the Yngwie Malmstein of painting, with no conception of how Kieth Richards / Picasso kicks his ****ing ass.


The best definition of art has to involve self expression...like, "Piss Christ", whether you like it or not, is totally "Art".
This guy is just learning how to become a human camera.
There's no poetry, subtext, or MEANING, other than...WoW! That looks durn near real!
I started out full of admiration, now, full of pity.
He should just shut up about stuff he doesn't understand and stick to the fascinating technical explanations.

 

Aye.

 

but takes more talent!

 

Wil hit the nail on the head . . . art is self expression, and that can be an outlet in just about anything you do . . . doesn't have to be a drawing . . . hell, it can be the way you decorate your home . . . and no artist has the right to pass judgement on someone else's self expression . . .

but that being said, he did an awesome fkn job w/ this painting . . .

 

No, just a different kind.

I'm an illustrator, myself, and can very much appreciate Blair's skill, but he's talking out of his ass here.

 

But you need to think about it this way. There's a guy in my mall who can draw unbelievable portraits. But that's all he can do. He can't do anything from his head, or anything original.

Yes, that guy's stuff looks incredible, but the visual aspect is only half of what's important. The other half is content. So while he gets a 10 in the visual department, he gets a 0 in the content department because he's just recreating what was already done by his camera.

 

A great song writer/artist can say more with 4 chords than a virtuoso who can play 60 notes a second, but who is reading from sheet music.

 

Couldn't you consider the actual production of film pain staking? From rolling film, and developing, to hitting up the dark room. Its not much, and probably doesn't take as much time as 40+ hours, but I know that what I do with my film counts as something.

But then again, most don't use film...but still.

 

^to say that using film is only a technical skill, and that producing a digital painting, which is not really conceptual, only a technical recreation of a photograph is hypocritical . . . what a shame that such a talented guy is making himself look like such a jackass with just a few words . . .