[Closed] Hyperrealist art....

Must have drawn over a photo background or something like that to get them that accurate.

Reminds me of Robert Bechtle and Chuck Close, pioneers of the photo realist movement of the 70s, tho that is clearly taken from a photo.

Although the drawings and paintings I make are based upon photographs, videos stills etc ,

[i] is able to recreate photos[/i]

Calling GEDA to the forum!

The old bloke ones are fab. I don't agree that he must've drawn over a photo, I can get things pretty accurate [edit]by copying, although far from "hyperreal"!
Here's my take on an old man, but done on scraperboard.
[IMG] [/IMG]

http://www.artgallery.co.uk/artist/glen_preece

this is stuff done by my cousins husband... and he hasn't even been practicing that hard.

I think the OP link is awesome stuff.

Very Impressive Dez! i like a lot.

Doesn't need to be drawn over a photo.

He's working to his own agenda, camera invention or not. That's art.

I did a series of photoreal paintings from poor photos, blurred ones etc. I like that, man copying technology. Posted one up on here a few weeks ago.

Altered reality: Hyperrealism was born from the idea of photorealism, which are paintings based on photographs but created in a non-photographic medium

he's an artisan and certainly no artist, if he drew from life i would be impressed by his draftsmanship.
poster 'art' for the internet generation.

Altered reality: Hyperrealism was born from the idea of photorealism, which are paintings based on photographs but created in a non-photographic medium
he's an artisan and certainly no artist, if he drew from life i would be impressed by his draftsmanship.
poster 'art' for the internet generation.

For me this depends on how the photos were taken, and how they were treated during the process.

[i]certainly no artist[/i]

what bollocks

what bollocks

no. it's my opinion. i think he's a draughtsman who copies photographic images and nothing more.
you don't have to agree with it and that opinion is as equally valid as yours (whatever that is)

There's a big one in the gallery/museum in either Chicago or Milwaukee, I forget which. It's enormous, must be 8ft high and 10ft across, and it's far beyond photo realism. No lens, sensor or film has ever been made to such a level of resolution, clarity and dynamic range, I'd wager. You can walk right up to it and see tiny details. It's more detailed than your eye would be able to resolve - even things in the distance are super detailed

It's really weird to look at. A bit like looking at a scene and multiplying the information and vividness by 100.

Definitely art.

If he included something unreal in the picture i'd be more impressed. A bit of creativity rather than the (extremely impressive) copying.

The clarity is unreal. That's kind of the point.

Have you seen the images up close?

and it's far beyond photo realism. No lens, sensor or film has ever been made to such a level of resolution, clarity and dynamic range, I'd wager. You can walk right up to it and see tiny details. It's more detailed than your eye would be able to resolve - even things in the distance are super detailed

so he's filled in the detail where resolving power and grain/pixels run out. amazing.
as for dynamic range that is dependent on D-max of a lead pencil and the paper white so your point is a moot one.

it's my opinion that naive appreciation of the process is being confused with artistic merit.

imho

Havent seen in real life, the article would have been better if they had zoomed in on some detail. Just have to go off the decriptions which make them sound "simpy" like drawings of photos.

Just have to go off the decriptions which make them sound "simpy" like drawings of photos.

but they are so much more than that. they are [b]large scale[/b] drawings of photo's

I like the banality of the subject, embraces of technology and dry humour of some 'original' photoreal works. It can seem clinical. Why make something look like a photograph? Because I can. Interestingly I find it's studio photographers (not ventura types, I mean photograhers that are themselves artists) who seem the most vocal against photorealism, as though it's on stepping on their toes. As Mr Smith points out each to their own opinion. Perhaps it has become 'pop' in the popular sense, in that the greater public likes it, far from reactionary formilst ideals.

it's photorealism as in realistic copying of a photo so it looks like a photo. All the vagaries of lens distortion and depth of field blur and lens irregularities are copied too. all the "mistakes" the camera makes over our eyes and brain are copied from the flat surface "reality" reproduction of a photo. Very skilfully crafted no doubt but I'd honestly rather view the fantastical imaginative scribblings of a child. drawing the 3d world around you that you view with your own eyes is a whole other ball game to reproducing the shapes and tones of a flat 2d surface, and drawing from your ideas and imagination and developing a visual language to communicate is another level above that! That kind of laborious photorealism is the 13 year old at school doing shaded drawings of shiny chrome cars in a magazine with a 2b pencil, taken to it's extreme conclusion. It's boring and it all the same - but that's the point of it.

Very very imoressive technically but it's not really creative at all. Does he take the pictures they are based on? If not is he infringing copyright? 🙂

Prefer DezB's personally.

Blah blah blah.

That bugger can draw. Art? Who gives a flying toss. That's massive talent, MASSIVE. Slag off all you want, the guy knows what he does very well and deserves any credit he gets,.

samuri +1

define 'art'.......

grum - Member
Very very imoressive technically but it's not really creative at all.

A bit like pressing the button on a camera really. A photographer doesn't create anything, he simply records the light entering the lens.

Thinking about it, presumably he does actually take the pictures himself - surely? In which case that's the creative part as he is making artistic decisions about what/who/when to photograph, the light and composition etc. The act of then transferring them to a different medium isn't creative IMO, although clearly very skilful, and that's what he's getting the attention for - not that there's really anything wrong with that.

Thinking about it, presumably he does actually take the pictures himself - surely?

It doesn't matter who takes the photos or how he gets them. It's how he treats them in the same way a painter does not (necceserily) make his own paint. The camera should be treated as another tool at the disposal of the artist. The important part is 'why' the art was created, to fulfil the creators agenda elevates beyond terms such as draftsman and artisan. The precise thinking of modernist patronage is 'why' it was created and not 'how'.

Thinking about it, presumably he does actually take the pictures himself - surely? In which case that's the creative part as he is making artistic decisions about what/who/when to photograph, the light and composition etc.

so a photographer then.

That bugger can draw.

we don't know that, he can copy from a photograph which i presume uses a projector or 1:1 tracing. if he drew from a small photograph i would be impressed but from the way i see it it's just join the dots with added detail.

drawing from life is much harder then copying/tracing

The important part is 'why' the art was created, to fulfil the creators agenda elevates beyond terms such as draftsman and artisan. The precise thinking of modernist patronage is 'why' it was created and not 'how'.

yes but those drawings are just large photocopies done by hand of photographic imagery with little artistic merit. there is very little beyond the wow factor of the medium and it's scale.

he better watch out if he's 'borrowed' the images without permission as there's been a few high profile artists end up in court paying $$$$$'s in compensation.

A bit like pressing the button on a camera really. A photographer doesn't create anything, he simply records the light entering the lens.

nice try 😆

he does other drawings and paintings as well as the hyper-real stuff, so I guess he can call himself an artist.

[i]we don't know that, he can copy from a photograph which i presume uses a projector or 1:1 tracing[/i]

no he doesn't, he draws directly.

it's my opinion that naive appreciation of the process is being confused with artistic merit.

Ironic coming from a proffessional photographer, that 🙂

Is it the same woman in the 2 pictures? 😆

It's alot better than some of the crap thats being labelled as art these days! Either way he's bloody talented.

Theres no 'cheat' involved in deriving an artwork from photos, painters have used cameras since the 1400s

Photorealism as a movement is art [i]about[/i] painting. Its got alot in common with minimalism (although it came about as a reaction against minimalism, the two -isms are different ways or achieving the same goal) in that expression has been stripped away, its deliberately cold, mechanical, emotionless work.

Reminds me of Robert Bechtle and Chuck Close, pioneers of the photo realist movement of the 70s, tho that is clearly taken from a photo.

Chuck Close's work is an interesting example actually - he's known for his huge photo-real portraits but Close is 'face blind' he's unable to recognise and remember people from their appearance

Ironic coming from a proffessional photographer, that

i find that's only really applicable to amateurs 🙄

I didn't know MrSmith was a photographer, valid points & opinions made clear, although somewhat different to my own view. What is interesting to me is photographers (I speak to, and again I stress not the Ventura types - but those who are themselves artists) often feel this way about this type of art. I don't see the clarity in the theologies based around 'looks too much like a photo' I think this comes as I as an art practicioner turn to the author for explanation (rightly or wrongly) and the visual outcome is secondary. Sure the same story could be told with the photograph it is based upon but the story was told with drawing or painting and it's the creators change in media to portray the story, working to his/her agenda, that makes the distinction between artist and artisan.

Attempting to define art = trying to lick your elbow.

Art is anything defined as such.
Therefore, all of the individual opinions above are both correct AND incorrect at the same time.

Feel better now?

I like hyperrealism - Hilo Chen is very popular amongst adolescent boys of all ages, for some reason:

[img] [/img]

Franz Gertsch's large format stuff is amazing too:
[img] [/img]

I didn't know MrSmith was a photographer

not really anything to do with it, i'm certainly no artist just a jobbing photographer making a living.

MrSmith - Member

I didn't know MrSmith was a photographer

not really anything to do with it, i'm certainly no artist just a jobbing photographer making a living.

Doesn't matter what you think - if anyone considers what you do as art, it is. 🙂

well some random gave enough of a toss to email me?! WTF? straight to the spam folder.
it's a bike forum about bikes and stuff. whoever it is is taking things far to seriously.

[img] [/img]

why should an artist be afforded more praise and be held in higher regard than an artisan?

I think his hyperrealist stuff is better than his other stuff

[img] [/img]

having said that, whenever I've seen hyperreal portraiture in galleries, it is always impressive because of the skill of the artist rather than evoking deeper emotion, which is what I believe art should do

An artist works to their own brief and sensibilities an artisan is told/commissioned what to create and does so. Either one can have varying levels of skill. The heirrachy of Artist > Artisan > Student is longstanding and still used to label the quality of art materials.

An example: current contemporary artist Armin Mersmann no longer takes commissions, he is regarded as an artist.

MrSmith - Member
well some random gave enough of a toss to email me?! WTF? straight to the spam folder.
it's a bike forum about bikes and stuff. whoever it is is taking things far to seriously.
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

Lol, some people give far too much of a toss over what is written on the Internet. It's all subjective, I took my email from my profile after a similar incident over 'what art is' were the sender wanted to carry on 'our argument' (???) in private. No arguments here, just enjoying others views and trying to articulate my own. Spam & block.

That reminds me I've not done Art Club last week.

I'll pop something up shortly.

MrSmith - Member
well some random gave enough of a toss to email me?! WTF? straight to the spam folder.

I only get the odd random image of Ben Kenobi from Fred 😥

Name and shame!!

Mr Smith that's awful, some-one wrote to you about what you'd said on this thread? Just for saying what you think?

weird people about.

I occasionally get emails from forum people about posts. I don't mind at all, sometimes it's appropriate. It's usually not a slagging-off, it's further discussion, often interesting.

However deleting what someone wants to say to you without reading is rude.

whenever I've seen hyperreal portraiture in galleries, it is always impressive because of the skill of the artist rather than evoking deeper emotion

Not me.

However deleting what someone wants to say to you without reading is rude.

giving weirdo spam the time of day is equally offensive.

It's not spam if it's addressed to you personally is it?

well the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$'s in nigerian princes bank accounts, marketing emails and blue pill tumescence pills are addressed to me too.

it's not you is it?

doesn't matter now as it whoever it is the address is picked up by the spam thingy so any further correspondence is never going to be seen.

Shame.

Anyway, I just bought an ultra-wide-angle lens. Woohoo.

Unfortunately the idea that art can only be art if it's original has been taken to far.

What's more beautiful, listening to some shitty new 'original' indie band (artists) or a really well performed and conducted Requiem Mass in D Minor by Mozart (artisans). The beauty of art is sometimes in the subtle details, complexity and aesthetic beauty.

What do I know though, my area is science.....I'd also argue math's is art.

haha love it, stw bothering itself about the meaning of capital A Art! It's a not-so-modern commodity to be bought and sold by people who don't care about you or my opinion. If I had loads of free time I wouldn't be sat about wasting my life copying photo's, no matter how accurate or detailed.

I'd definitely argue that maths and music is "Art". of course it is. there is a subjective immediacy in music you cannot get in any other form, and there is a beauty and symmetry and clarity in maths I don't really understand. The only real argument is about what is "good" and that is down to the individual really.