… or is this guy? No really, I can’t tell right now.
looks like everyone is a bit prickelish. Now maybe I am slow, so which one is you again? =emberleo?
Dunno. Since you’re into the subject, you might be interested in a story the New Yorker printed a couple of weeks ago about the fashion industry’s top digital artist! Talk about blurring the line between photography and realism!
newyorker.com/reporting/2008 … ct_collins
A year or two ago, I stayed with my niece in London. She
s a Set Designer, and a very talented artist. On one occasion, during my stay, I hovered on the periphery of a conversation she was having with a friend. The subject of the conversation was a young artist, whos work was ‘Photorealistic’ .
During the discussion, my niece made the observation, that she knew ‘where he was coming from’. For my part, I just couldn
t see the point, of an incredibly talented young guy going to all that trouble to create a work of art, that virtually all onlookers are going to mistake for a photo. How much more entertaining or beguiling it would be, if he devoted that energy and talent to creating imagery that only he can create, because its his own inimitable interpretation of the subject.
From my perspective, ‘Photorealisic Imagery’, no matter how technically brilliant, in its execution, isn
t [i]'Art'[/i] Its just, ‘Deluxe Technical Illustration’.
That`s my take on it
Here’s a thought: photorealism applied to a completely imaginary world. The artist could not only display his/her technical prowess, but explore a vision beyond mere illustration, because if the artist’s subject were fantastic enough, nobody could confuse the work with a photograph.
But then, are we discounting photography itself as an art form?
I dunno. Maybe I’m guilty of being too broad in my definition of art.
I am Goyen.
Jacqi - what you’re talking about is some photo/hyper-realists do. In that (very rare) context, I can actually appriciate it as more than a technical excercise. The trouble is so few people actually seem to have had that idea - they just get caught up in making it look as spectacular as possible (I am also uneasy about the value of specitcle in art).
I don’t think you are discounting photography as an artistic medium either.
In answer to your question, since you put it so bluntly, I’m afraid it is you being the dick. Photorealism has a valid place within art. Put simply, and to answer your question within the Photorealism forum,
Answer: Access to, and visualisation of a subject matter, or product, that does not yet, or will never exist.
As for “shouldn’t artists be celebrating mediums for what makes them unique”, go get yourself a pen and some paper and stop using scrivener.
Everyone calm down. If there will be fighting here vic-k, pigeon brain or I should be the key players. We have not authorized this conflict so you can’t start yet.
I hate strawberries. Does that make them “un-fruit” and as such not suitable for a fruit bowl? “Of course not!” you say, yet this is exactly your position. Katherine and I have had a similar disagreement over self publishing, what it means to be a writer/author/artist, and if vic-k is in fact sane. What do you think the most important word in that last thought was? (hint for vic-k, it is in italics)
It is great to have opinions. It is better to have folks around you who have opinions that are diverse from yours. It is even better to [i]respect[/i] others even though you can not agree with them. It is called maturing. Not a lot of fun, and some of us refuse to do it graciously. Be better people than we are.
So stop being a dick. All of you. Leave that to the +3. We are probably better at it anyway.
Now on to the actual photo-realism question…
I am unable to appreciate abstract art. I just don’t get it. One of my best friends is an artist and he has tried to get me to understand his works, but unless he gives me a piece (which I would hide in a back hall) I will probably never buy one. An associate of his is a photo-realist. I “get” his stuff. And I appreciate it. Why? I don’t know. It just feels right and makes sense to me. I understand his points. Keep in mind I am using photo-realism to describe the “quality” not the subject matter. Last time I checked squid did not fly, but it was easy to see with a photo-realistic squid flying down main street.
Another thing is that I appreciate the “workman” quality of the work. No “a little here, maybe some more there” type stuff. There is planning, forethought, control. I assume that these exist in the abstract, but I just don’t see and there for don’t appreciate it. Call me uneducated (you would be correct) and unsophisticated (bingo) all you want.
BTW this is not a new argument. In music we have had these arguments as new media or styles emerged. Used to be that in painting “realism” was the ultimate goal and “abstract” was a kids 'fridge work. Looks like we have proven Solomon correct: there is nothing new under the heavens.
ve just realised I failed miserably, to make the connection between this thread and something that engaged my attention for quite a good while on Tus evening. It was an article in the Guardian, about Craig Wiley winning the BP prize for a portrait of his lover. Eventually It dawned on me I was looking at a painting, but having said that, it wasnt until I
d re-read the article properly, that I accepted the fact I was looking at a painting. BUT!! I still carried on scrutinising the image, for evidence that it wasnt a photo Such is the awe, admiration and jealousy I experience in the presence of this kind of ‘t ruly awesome talent’, at least, that`s how I would describe it.
arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/sto … 81,00.html
Along with altruism and compassion, creativity, is the facet of the human condition, that I admire most. I worship at the alter of creativity, to the point of ‘deviancy’. In the case of photorealism however, as with photography, tis the subject matter, and that, alone that creates the visual impact, and not the method of reproduction. The only life, vibrancy or soul these images possess, is that inherent in the subject matter itself.
For the life of me, I can`t see the photorealistic image as being anything other than, purely, a celebration of outstanding technical brilliance, as opposed to, say:
I really don’t know. Like Jaysen, I think it’s very much a matter of taste. I’ve become very reluctant over the years to devalue anything (anything that’s not defined as obscene, that is) as “not art,” even when a work doesn’t appeal to my taste, I don’t understand it, or I don’t like the message being conveyed.
Plus, when I was in college, I found myself working as a student assistant in my university’s School of Art. The building featured galleries for various shows and for students’ work, but you’d always see something interesting posted on the walls in the corridors. One day, a student project from a graphic design class made me stop cold. It was a photorealistic depiction of an opened bottle of nail enamel, on its side, nail polish oozing from the bottle. I knew the artist; she was a nice kid, cheerful and friendly. I had new respect for her skill; she had created this unbelievably realistic depiction with colored pencils. But that’s not what caught my attention or made this work unique. It was such a mundane assignment, but she had infused the nail polish with so much light and such saturated color that it looked like it was glowing - it was an effect that escaped the boundaries of realistic depiction or illustration. Even if you didn’t know the artist, and didn’t see the frequent changes of wild nail polish colors she wore, you could tell by looking at this piece that she loved wearing nail polish.
So, like I said, I don’t know. It would really be cool, though, for someone to knock all of our socks off with a photorealistic work that also expresses enough vision to break the boundaries of being considered and illustration. I’m hopeful!
‘Specious at best and moronic at worst’, would best describe the statement that, “Photorealism isn
t [i]Art[/i] ." It is, patently! The point I made about, "Art/P.R./Dlux Tech, Illus,” was made baddly.
However, the debate about what constitutes genuine artistic endeavour, will endure, long after mankind has left this planet and has gone on to colonised other worlds. It
s probably a question that will never be answered, definitively. I dont think Photorealism has anything to worry about on that score.
Then again, if I
m being honest, I have to ask myself, how many times have I said, " Bloody ell! Look at that apple! You could eat it, it
s so real!" when looking at some, 'Still Life', by one of the Masters (Old or New)? It never occurred to me to ask, "Whats the ‘point?’ So, ‘why’ in the case of photorealism? I think I may have an answer: with the amount of admiration I feel for the talent these artists obviously possess, my heart over rules my head, and wants to see other facets of their artistic temperament. In the case of the aforementioned ‘Masters’, the evidence abounds.
To give them there due: as far as these artist are concerned, they point out, that it is purely the achievement of, ‘Realism’ they seek , so don
t go looking for something that isnt there. And what
s more, they dont surround their work, with a load of old pretentious/spurious/specious twaddle.
I am firmly of the belief, that ‘The Art World
in its entirety suffers from, 'The Kings New Clothes Syndrome’
I once spent an hour looking at da Vinci’s cartoon of ‘The Virgin and Child with Saint John the Baptist and Saint Anne’, in The Sainsbury Wing, of the National gallery, ‘gobsmacked’! Needless to say that image is indelibly etched onto my feeble brain. But!! I
ve spent that much time carefully scrutinising Craig Wylies ‘K’, that she`s in there, alongside Leonardo
Well I could play devil’s advocate and ask why do we need actor’s and actresses any more as CGI has come far enough to entertain and the cost is much less so instead of reading about the next hollywood star on drugs we can create all digital worlds and replace “acting” since it is not needed is it?
I mean it does take talent to act by why act in the first place? It can all be reproduced digitally so what is the need?
In lamen terms yes Sebbi your comment is close minded. Photo Realism is truly a very rare talent amongst artists because of the amount of skill it takes to create them. With the advent of CGI and photoshop old school photo realistic artists are even rarer now but every magazine you have ever read, every poster, every ad in any kind of Visual Media was “touched up” by an artist. Before computers it was these "photo realistic artists that did the work and of all the creative forms of “art” Photo Realism was the most widely seen and most popular unknowingly though and of course unrecognized for their works and their talent.
I can name at least two friends of mine that have done some acting.
Can anyone on this forum say they know photo realistic artist? I bet not.
I am not saying it to be mean Sebbi, just pointing out that Photo Realism is one of the most difficult forms of artistic expression known to man (that is why there are so few because it takes more than talent, it takes skill at the level of a prodigy).
What is sad is it is the least understood and appreciated art form around and now especially with CGI making it easy.
But think for just a second. Before CGI and Photoshop exactly how were things done?
It just makes me sad when such a gifted form of artistic expression does not get the recognition it deserves.
It is like me comparing Plays and shows from the greatest minds and saying they are no better and serve no more purpose than a B rated soap opera in acting, production, skill, and entertainment value.
PS: It is now known as COMMERCIAL ART.
Here is a kicker. You think Photography is art? Bah. ALmost every single well known “Photographer” uses photoshop or pays someone to use photoshop to enhance their photos. Magazines, posters, postcards, books, flyers, and anything printed have all been digitally enhanced in Photoshop. Now can just anyone do it? Nope. Believe me the web is full of good examples of people who “think” they are good at photoshop.
Now practicality let me tell you of a gentlemen and his story of success. He is a “Digital Artist”. His tool is a a few Mac Pros and Photo Shop. He works out of his living room. Usually in his underwear for a few hours each morning.
He is around 36 years old. Lives in New York CIty.
He only works by appointment only. He turns down 90% of the jobs he is offered because he doesn’t have enough time. He can stay as busy as he wants since he is an independent contractor.
His clients are magazines and professional photographers. He touches up and “corrects” photos and photo shoots. A photographer takes a group of models to Australia and does a photo shoot on the beach. When they return they have the perfect picture but he outfit is the wrong color, here expression (model) is all wrong, and or jewelry is miss-positioned. He can fix all of that.
He can also have the models shot in NYC instead of paying for them all to go to Australia. Then just drop in the backgrounds and do the lighting. He is in very much demand because he makes the photographers work look good.
You have seen his work if you have ever seen a Time Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, National Geographic, FHM, Maxim to just name a few of his clients.
Now the kicker. Guess how much he makes?
He charges $350.00 an hour for his time.
A 40 hour work week nets him $14,000.00
His waiting list is over 6 months out.
If anyone thinks a photo is taken and then printed without enhancement you are forgetting the actual “art” of pre-press and yes it is an art. A very old art. In fact it came before photography.
oh the unsung…
No it doesn’t. No self-employed person bills 40 hours in a 40-hour week. Usually more like half that, with the rest going to overhead of various kinds.
I mention it because it’s one of the most important things to understand if you’re considering self-employment. A big reason why people fail is because they don’t consider overhead and set their hourly rate too low.
If I am being a dick I am happy to accept it. But here’s the thing:
Most of my time spent writing those posts wasn’t intented to be directed into attacking photorealism. I was defending my right not to value something (beyond it’s technical value) that someone else calls art.
Which raises an interesting point: Do we have this right?
How exactly do ‘you’ define ‘ART’?
In your opinion, are either of these , ‘ART’?
Ok, let’s all take a deep breath here. There are all kinds of forms of creative expression that have been lumped together under the umbrella term of “art.” I think we can all agree that we all have different internal definitions of what we consider “art,” but that it is a matter of taste. I happen to like photorealism (along with other styles, too), partly because I marvel at the skill that it requires. But there are lots of people who don’t like it, and it doesn’t fit their definition of “art.” I can respect that.
I can also respect the commercial artist and the Photoshop wizard. It’s the thought, the skill, the creativity and the craft involved.
Is it you’re right? It’s as much your right to not value something as it is someone else’s right to value it. I definitely have my own preferences, but I have to be ‘other-centered’ enough to recognize others can and do have different preferences. There are values that I have that are more core and that I have a lot more investment in, and I have a right to those too, as do you to yours. It’s more a question about respect. Sure, you have a right to have your preferences, but do you respect and account for the fact that others have this same right? How you frame your comments will either display this respect or not, and if someone feels disrespected and that their own points of view aren’t allowed for, they’ll likely get pissed and react.
So for me a more interesting question is how to have your ‘right’ to not value what someone else values, but to be mature enough to demonstrate your respect for those that do value it.
This is really about preferences and matters of taste, aesthetics not ethics. That’s another whole can of worms!