That's not a photo?

onona wrote in post #14922225
Art, in my view, should provoke or evoke the viewer in some way.

you seem awfully provoked?

Wow! very impressive, thx for sharing the link!

ride5000 wrote in post #14922672
you seem awfully provoked?

Why are you being so sensitive? This is a discussion, and I'm discussing.

Honestly, around it here it seems that if you post anything longer than a "cool lol" comment, you're apparently grinding an axe, arguing, or being offensive. Do none of you ever have any discussions in real life? :/

sensitive?

you made a statement about what art should do.

i was illustrating that perhaps it had already done just that.

surely you see that providing impetus for a discussion of "what art is/isn't" is a form of provocation?

onona wrote in post #14922876
Why are you being so sensitive? This is a discussion, and I'm discussing.

Honestly, around it here it seems that if you post anything longer than a "cool lol" comment, you're apparently grinding an axe, arguing, or being offensive. Do none of you ever have any discussions in real life? :/

...why are you so defensive? This is a discussion, ride5000 was discussing. You appear to be the sensitive one: why are you being so sensitive?

I'm not ready to discount his accomplishment (if it is legit). Even IF anyone can do it he took the time to do it. Props

I find them interesting and beautiful .... thank you for posting.

onona wrote in post #14921279
And honestly, that's really all it takes. There was a looooong thread about this over on a digital site I help run, which eventually got a little out of hand due to all the strong opinions on the subject. At the end of the day, drawings like this can actually be done by anyone if they're patient enough, as copying photos is very easy and requires little artistic skill (this is because drawing from a photo is just a case of copying shapes, as no interpretation of form, dimension or perspective is required). It simply takes quite a lot of time and patience. It's also, in my opinion, creatively bankrupt as it shows an obsession with technique as opposed to imagination (sound familiar to photographers?), and, at the risk of sounding like a high art snob, it largely only impresses art beginners and non-artists. To me, these drawings are flat, lifeless and utterly fail to evoke any kind of emotional response in me.

I'm sure I'll get flack for this post, but I don't care. I find the coarse, loose brushwork of a master painter like Turner far more evocative and expressive than this anally retentive photo copying. There's so much more to art than this.

I agree.

It's like classical musicians with amazing facility. They practice countless hours/days/weeks/years in pursuit of technical perfection and to play the piece with high precision. I never discount their abilities, though it's surprising how narrow they are as "musicians", like the line between being a musician and a technician is blurred too much. Ask them to improvise over a few chord changes and they are lost.

Again, not discounting them, or the artist from the original post. I clicked on the link and thought the image of the woman was impressive given that it was drawn with ball point pens. Wow!

I'm a photographer because I can't draw a lick...

Seeing light and shadow is a skill that can be learned. The ability to reproduce it in specific media is a gift.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14924545
The ability to reproduce it in specific media is a gift.

I can't draw a lick either but I bet you if I really tried, I can do it. It's a skill.

Whilst I agree that anyone can be thought "basic" artistic skills, the images in this case go beyond basic art.
I can press a shutter button to take a photograph, but unless I have an good understanding of the camera, lighting, composition etc, chances are, it will just be a snapshot.

The drawings show a skill level that very few of us are likely to reach, which makes me wonder, is this what art is all about?

After taking a look at the link, my first thought after "amazing" was, "and people around here complain about having to spend time post processing shots - they don't know how lucky they are!"

Miki G wrote in post #14925248
Whilst I agree that anyone can be thought "basic" artistic skills, the images in this case go beyond basic art.
I can press a shutter button to take a photograph, but unless I have an good understanding of the camera, lighting, composition etc, chances are, it will just be a snapshot.

The drawings show a skill level that very few of us are likely to reach, which makes me wonder, is this what art is all about?

But in your example, I'd say that pretty much anyone can be taught lighting, composition, etc. Even to a degree of high proficiency where they could be at least a somewhat successful photographer. But I do agree that at a certain point there are some people who have the potential to be truly gifted at an art and some who will never break that threshhold of "talented" or even "very talented". Does this particular artist possess a talent/gift that is not achievable by the majority of the population with proper instruction and sufficient practice? Since I'm not an artist, I have to default to the opinion of someone who's done something similar.

Either way, it's certainly not going to prevent me from enjoying the work.

you guys should go check out the thread on the Bic Pen Art forum: Thats not a drawing?

It seams that some of the pen purists think photography is easier than you would think, they are actually downplaying some works as just "copying" reality.

The level of skill there is just incredible, and I've gotta congratulate those people on it.

On the other hand...I've gotta wonder what the point is in doing a photorealistic drawing of a cat or a girl, when one could just photograph a cat or a girl. Unless there's some quality that's not capable of being captured far more efficiently in a photograph, then why even bother painstakingly drawing something in order to make it look like a photograph?