dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1

4 edits
reply to SueS

Re: I'd like your hear your thoughts

said by SueS:

I can't explain it any other way than it is exceptional talent. It would be a painting very few people would ever be able to make. Try painting a simple photo and you will understand the level of difficultly.

But again my question is WHY???
It was no easy thing being Rembrandt either but no mistaking him... where as these pure tech painters (no questioning its talent) can't be discerned from a photo let alone another artist... since their goal is to BE a photo. Again have to ask WHY?
Or why someone would spend $1000 for essentially a large photo of a Monopoly board.

Again its impressive technique, but totally lacking in self artistry or being, just well executed mechanics.

Conversely and artist I have several originals of, I also have a Giclee full size reproduction on canvas of one of his works of my favorite KW Bistro now long gone... original sold to the owners probably for a few 1000...and unless you know he had a very thick 3D style like Monet from a distance at full size looks very much the original I paid 300 for (The Giclee process and canvas probably cost at least half of that), and haven't seen him reproduce since.

I see mechanics mimicking art best it can, but the other way around seems really bizarre to me.

Is it beyond being a skilled robot they have no creative talent?
--



SueS
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2

1 recommendation

If I am going to paint an apple, I am going to look at an apple and paint it so it looks as much like the real apple as I can. We need to see what we are painting, why not use a photograph? I once painted a dog using a photo out of a book. Some painters try to paint stuff as realistic as possible, if you were one of those painters, why wouldn't you use a photograph?

Any painter will have their own identity in their work, no two painters work will look the same.

This is my last response.


Jodokast96
Stupid people really piss me off.
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2

3 recommendations

While you guys are arguing, allow me to interject with an example: »vianaarts.deviantart.com/

Carry on.


SueS
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2
said by Jodokast96:

While you guys are arguing, allow me to interject with an example: »vianaarts.deviantart.com/

Carry on.

Exceptional talent!


Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to SueS
said by SueS:

Any painter will have their own identity in their work, no two painters work will look the same.

Ah that is my exact point artists that practice this type of painting, no there would be near ZERO difference without a magnifying glass and study between any two...

Again the point is to reproduce an EXACT replica of the of the object or photo...absolutely nothing of the artist...a pixel by pixel copy. Might as well be done much faster and cheaper by a machine as that is all they are laboriously being.
--



Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
reply to Jodokast96
said by Jodokast96:

While you guys are arguing, allow me to interject with an example: »vianaarts.deviantart.com/

Carry on.

Yeah that's the kind of stuff, though the second girls is clearly art and not literal photo representation.

Also being sold at photo kind of prices not hundreds or thousand I have seen asked for them when they are originals. (Though not necessarily not reproduced too)

And again I am not saying there is no talent involved, just no personality of the artist which again there is in the second girl theere is not in the cats or the first girl.
--