Not a photo, but a digital painting

[Wilhelm-Scream]

The quality of art has nothing to do with how arduous it is to produce it.

That's what this guy doesn't get.
He says photography isn't art, because it's mechanical reproduction of reality.
But his reproduction of reality is "art"?
That means the only thing elevating it to "arthood", is the fact that he is reproducing the image with his own talented hand instead of a machine.

That means Art = Technique
And that's bull****.



The thing that makes photography art is the fact that you are seeing something that appeals to you aesthetically, and then you decide how to record that image.

3 people could have the same kind of camera, go out taking pictures all day, and one might go to the mountains and take pastoral views of a bunch of grazing sheep...the next person might make designs in the sand with their fingers and light it so there are harsh shadows and take a picture,...and the third might go around all day taking gritty b+w pictures of crack****es and heroin addicts downtown.

AND, even if all 3 were moved to take a picture of the same statue...one might go high on a mountain, to get one from afar, making the statue appear to be a spec.....while the next might sit right beneath the statue, so it looks towering, filling the sky, imposing and massive, and the third might climb up and take a close up of just the head.


Those are all artistic decisions that the ARTIST makes.




Let alone really conceptual compositions...

You can do a plain portrait of the subject, sitting in a chair, or you might think the person is a real hard ass and dress them up as a samurai, sticking a sword into another person, or maybe into a puppy....or you might want to take them down a peg and tell them to get naked and run out into the street.


All A.R.T.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

but takes more talent!

It really depends on what's being put in, people like da vinci, did not purely use talent like a magical wand, it was skill, the combination of talent and knowledge acquired through hard study.

 

[DOG LIPS]

http://airbrushworkshops.com/images/ticagroupOpt.jpg

From left to right:

Wilhelm, Jag, and muscles

Dunno why that popped in my head.

 

[DV8]

^hahaha! jag tucks his polo shirts in

 

[DV8]

It really depends on what's being put in, people like da vinci, did not purely use talent like a magical wand, it was skill, the combination of talent and knowledge acquired through hard study.

yes, and there is a lot of evidence that the renaissance masters used a lot of projection and visual aids when creating their paintings . . . their studios were much more like film studios than just freehand painting . . .

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

http://airbrushworkshops.com/images/ticagroupOpt.jpg

From left to right:

Wilhelm, Jag, and muscles

Dunno why that popped in my head.

'Cause you've been sampling C. Lee's Roomatiz Medicine?

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

yes, and there is a lot of evidence that the renaissance masters used a lot of projection and visual aids when creating their paintings . . . their studios were much more like film studios than just freehand painting . . .

Ya, it's not really an argument that they are equal though, if that is what's being argued here, it's a pointless argument to argue,it depends what is being put in, the pencil is a mechanical instrument, the hand is a mechanical instrument, the problem with using instruments such as projection and visual aids, while they can be useful in learning, they can also be crutches, something Da Vinci lacked.

 

[04nbod]

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.

I believe that both have to have an eye for the same things visually but the artist also has to have the skill to put it on the canvas rather than click a button.

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.

But there is something in the process of painting/ airbrushing or whatever he uses that adds something. In doing this piece he had a motive behind it therefore it has meaning. There are plenty of portait artists celebrated for doing exactly what this is man is doing the only difference is that they were doing it pre-photography.

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.

Look at it this way, without the virtuoso the sheet music would remain sheet music and meaningless. In the act of playing he creates the emotion for the listener.

 

[DV8]

Ya, it's not really an argument that they are equal though, if that is what's being argued here, it's a pointless argument to argue,it depends what is being put in, the pencil is a mechanical instrument, the hand is a mechanical instrument, the problem with using instruments such as projection and visual aids, while they can be useful in learning, they can also be crutches, something Da Vinci lacked.

no, it's not . . . I was just saying

also, unless this artist actually took the original photograph of the subject, his execution required even less creativity than the photograph's composition . . .

 

[DV8]

But there is something in the process of painting/ airbrushing or whatever he uses that adds something. In doing this piece he had a motive behind it therefore it has meaning. There are plenty of portait artists celebrated for doing exactly what this is man is doing the only difference is that they were doing it pre-photography.

but his only artistic motive was to simply represent what he saw in front of him . . . while he's a great artist technically, he's more or less acting as a human photocopier . . . .

 

[Logan's Runt]

no, it's not . . . I was just saying

also, unless this artist actually took the original photograph of the subject, his execution required even less creativity than the photograph's composition . . .

He did take the photograph. He talked about specific decisions he made while taking the photograph, which makes it even more laughable that he denies the art in photography.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

also, unless this artist actually took the original photograph of the subject, his execution required even less creativity than the photograph's composition . . .

For the guy who done the work related to this thread, yes, it's pure duplication.
Even if he took the photograph, it's still duplication, augmenting reality takes more skill.

 

[DV8]

He did take the photograph. He talked about specific decisions he made while taking the photograph, which makes it even more laughable that he denies the art in photography.

oh he did . . . haha; well he's there's nothing special about the photo itself, which adds to the notion that he's talking out of his ass . . . we should contact him or the magazine and call him out

 

[04nbod]

but his only artistic motive was to simply represent what he saw in front of him . . . while he's a great artist technically, he's more or less acting as a human photocopier . . . .

But why do it as a digital piece and not leave it as a photograph? Does he want to go back to the portraiture of holbein or joseph wright of derby? Is he making a statement about the artistic world around him? Is he making a statement about reality? Is he saying something about individuality by his hyper-realism?

Does any of that matter anyway? Art is in the eye of the audience. Damien Hurst's bling skull held no charm for me but this raises so many questions making the art meaningful to me. I'd rather see this in a gallery than half of the fine art conceptual crap that plagues the art world today.

 

[Castlewood]

I actually don't agree with "art" such as this, because while I am an artist, who specializes in pencil sketches and whatnot, I really don't like the idea of digitally "creating" people on the computer. Yes, it's COOL as hell, but let's think about it.

A movie called "S1MONE", with Al Pacino - although the film sucked, it brought up a good point, along with "Wag the Dog", and even an Animatrix episode called "Flight of the Osiris".... How the hell do we know that what we're seeing is real? I showed my girlfriend that first picture and she said, "She's pretty"... and then I said, "She's fake... It was done on the computer." She had no clue.

Yes, it's cool to get have this technology in movies, but if what we're seeing in movies looks real, how do we know the footage on CNN is real? How do we know Bin Laden is real? How do we know Bush is real? Silly, over-the-top questions, sure, but they're legitimate... are they not?

I'm not trying to start an argument, or say that this picture sucks, because it doesn't.... I'm just saying... What if someone used this technology for something NOT cool? What if someone created a sex scandal of a politician, or created a video of a celebrity doing drugs, or ANYTHING that could harm, instead of entertain. What if it got into the wrong hands, and they did something MAJOR?

 

[DV8]

wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!! hold the phone . . . I know LR metnioned this on the first page, but this isn't a DIGITAL painting!! It's a painting-painting!

KD, fix this thread title!!

 

[04nbod]

wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!! hold the phone . . . I know LR metnioned this on the first page, but this isn't a DIGITAL painting!! It's a painting-painting!

KD, fix this thread title!!

Isn't it airbrushed on canvas? I saw it on the news months ago

 

[SalaciousVC]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJNvKjQHv8I

This is a Great Digital Painting

 

[DV8]

But why do it as a digital piece and not leave it as a photograph? Does he want to go back to the portraiture of holbein or joseph wright of derby? Is he making a statement about the artistic world around him? Is he making a statement about reality? Is he saying something about individuality by his hyper-realism?

Does any of that matter anyway? Art is in the eye of the audience. Damien Hurst's bling skull held no charm for me but this raises so many questions making the art meaningful to me. I'd rather see this in a gallery than half of the fine art conceptual crap that plagues the art world today.

I hear what you're saying, and I do agree (and failed to mention this earlier) that there is a lot of CRAP that's passed off as 'fine art' which doesn't constitue anything creative or insightful in the name of 'expression' . . .

and while I will again reiterate how masterful of a technical artist this guy is, he's a one-trick pony (I'll assume until I see some of his other work)

the guy is a portrait realist, and his photography skills are mediocre at best . . . if I saw this hanging in an art gallery I'd be like wtf I'd be like, that's not really art, it's the cover of a bridal mag

of course once you told me it was a painting, I'd give it more credit for the obvious technical precision, but it doesn't do anything else to impress me . . .

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Art is in the eye of the audience.

Yep, and as such, we form opinions.
I prefer to see hard graph craftsmanship on paper not digital that is evident in front of me than for example, an abstract social commentary on the world today, or a cow cut in half, does that make there work any less credible? No.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Art is in the eye of the audience.

No way. Art isn't in the eye of the audience at all.
It's all about the motivations of the artist.
If the Artist creates something that wasn't there before, and honestly says that it's his art, then it is art.
Who the hell is someone else to tell him that it's not a valid self expression, or something he's not passionate about, or something over which he agonized and invested time in, so that it would match the concept in his mind?


For instance, you could have a TV show written and directed by a hack who is DOING it, plugging in all the familiar blanks, for the paycheck.
He has certain artistic impulses, but he denies them, because he has the skill and knowledge to produce what will appear to be professional and slick on air.

Then, you have Ed Wood, who bends over backwards to beg and steal to get a laughably poorly made movie made, because he's obsessed with his vision of it, and wants to go through the magical exercise of seeing/feeling something in his head, and manifesting it in the physical world.


The first guys work is super professional, slick, impressive...and isn't ART.
Ed Wood's movie is crappy, ridiculous, reeks of ineptitude, but is his ART.

 

[DV8]

Isn't it airbrushed on canvas? I saw it on the news months ago

yeah, but the thread title says it's digital!!! it's not digital at all . . .

KD fails again.

 

[DV8]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJNvKjQHv8I

This is a Great Digital Painting

wow! that is pretty sick

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm not trying to start an argument, or say that this picture sucks, because it doesn't.... I'm just saying... What if someone used this technology for something NOT cool? What if someone created a sex scandal of a politician, or created a video of a celebrity doing drugs, or ANYTHING that could harm, instead of entertain. What if it got into the wrong hands, and they did something MAJOR?

HAHAHA, yeah, we better outlaw paint, air brushes, X-Acto knives and colored pencils!
lol

 

[DV8]

^I wish someone would use their powers for evil to paint nudie pictures of Jessica Biel and such