That's not a photo?

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 sort of agree.

Don't get me wrong...the technical skill is amazing. I couldn't imagine doing that, even with all the time in the world.

But in the end, we just end up with stuff like "photorealistic drawing of girl" and "photorealistic drawing of cat". The only thing worth noting here is the very great ability to make photorealistic drawings. But that's just technical skill. If those actually WERE photographs instead of drawings, would anyone be saying that they have any artistic merit whatsoever?

I just feel like...there are no bonus points for effort. The fact that someone can make photorealistic drawings is very cool, I'm not denying that. But that skill is sort of being squandered if the results are just stuff that one could just as easily and more efficiently do via actual photography. Use that skill to do something that one CAN'T do with photography, and then we're talking.

jra wrote in post #14921306
I would have to disagree because I'm quite certain that no level of patience would allow me to re-create photos with a pen like what has been shown (I could never seem to even get the easy drawings in the "Learn to Draw" books that we had as kids).
Being able to translate a photograph into another medium does take a certain level of skill.

I agree that it takes skill. I can't imagine myself EVER being able to draw something like this.

But at the end of the day, it's just a demonstration of technical skill and nothing more. It's an attempt to make drawings look as much as possible like photographs. Which is really weird. Because if you're not going to embrace the NON-photographic potentials of drawing, then why not just make a photograph?

This is an insane amount of technical skill squandered on work that is really pretty much artistically void. And that's sort of a shame. Use that amazing technical skill and give us stuff that DOESN'T just look like a boring run-of-the-mill photograph.

Clean Gene wrote in post #14929653
I agree that it takes skill. I can't imagine myself EVER being able to draw something like this.

But at the end of the day, it's just a demonstration of technical skill and nothing more. It's an attempt to make drawings look as much as possible like photographs. Which is really weird. Because if you're not going to embrace the NON-photographic potentials of drawing, then why not just make a photograph?

This is an insane amount of technical skill squandered on work that is really pretty much artistically void. And that's sort of a shame. Use that amazing technical skill and give us stuff that DOESN'T just look like a boring run-of-the-mill photograph.

By ths logic, any photo that looks "painterly" is similarly meaningless.

Indeed, why not just pick up a brush and canvas?

However, "painterly" is often seen as a compliment and is often used to describe an image that transcends the inherent realism of photography.

I've had several folks tell me this looks like a painting. Should I be insulted?

^ That's a great shot Jay

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14929673
By ths logic, any photo that looks "painterly" is similarly meaningless.

Indeed, why not just pick up a brush and canvas?

However, "painterly" is often seen as a compliment and is often used to describe an image that transcends the inherent realism of photography.

For one thing, there's the whole economics of the matter. It's a whole lot more efficient to do a "painterly photograph" than a "photorelistic painting". What matters is the result, not the technique. Take a painter and a photographer, have them reproduce the exact same work of art. Assuming that both of their resulting works are the same, then in terms of artistic merit it doesn't matter how they did it. Draw it, photograph it, scan it, whatever. It's nothing but a reproduction of an original. And this is hyperbole, but faithfully reproducing a turd still means that the result is a turd, whether the result was reproduced via photography, painting, or actually squeezing out a turd. again, I have to restate that that was hyperbole. I'm not saying that the drawings are turds. But you don't get extra points for effort. You can draw it, photograph it, or squeeze it out. If the result is the same, then the method doesn't mean $#**. Sure I see people doing "painterly photographs", and love them. But I guarantee that in most of thos cases, it was probably more efficient to do a "painterly photograph" rather than an identical painting. Method doesn't matter. The final result matters. I'm not saying that these drawings are WORSE than an equivalent photograph. I'm saying that if THAT'S what one's going to meticulously make look like a photograph, that it'd be far more efficient to just do a photograph.

As far as the photo you posted, that's a great photo.

Now make a painting that looks just like that.

Then compare the two, and ask yourself which one wasted more of your time. Time taken vs the time you could have spent out shooting, what actually costs more? The photorealistic photo, or the photorealistic painting which was designed to look like a photo and kept you from obtaining images?

That's what I'm saying.

I love that photo of yours, it's great. If some dude were to copy it via drawing, try to make it as realistic as possible, guess which work I'd think had more artistic merit. YOURS. He was copying you all the way, while YOU were the one exercising an artistic vision. Meanwhile, while he's meticulously copying stuff you already did, you're out there with your camera making MORE original work.

If that "image of girl" and "image of cat" were merely photographs, no one would be paying attention to the dude at all. Because there really isn't that much that's noteworthy about the actual images, the ONLY thing we're talking about is technique. I wouldn't look at your photo and drool over your impressive ability to make your photo look like a drawing, I'd be congratulating you on the fact that your "painterly look" contributes to the whole piece. Someone could paint or draw an identical work and that wouldn't make it any better or worse than your photograph.

this whole thread is filled with out-of-hand dismissals by a bunch of guys with cameras who fancy themselves artists.

it's as if pointing an image-capture machine, twisting a few dials, and pushing a button is the pinnacle of the creative process...

ride5000 wrote in post #14929976
this whole thread is filled with out-of-hand dismissals by a bunch of guys with cameras who fancy themselves artists.

it's as if pointing an image-capture machine, twisting a few dials, and pushing a button is the pinnacle of the creative process...

I like to think that the artist is the one with an original vision, whether he uses a camera, a pen, or a paintbrush.

nothing is original.

ride5000 wrote in post #14930465
nothing is original.

But everything is unique.

No doubt there is some skill there - I dont intend on ever trying to compete with it (not with a pen anyway).

Thing is - person takes a decent still photo (B&W I assume - no idea if it is his image or not). Replicates it with pen and paper. And then scans it. No doubt 60 hours of "artistic talent" could be better spent than being a photocopier.

IMO, an artist is someone who sees a subject in a unique way & reproduces what they see so that others can also see it as they envisioned it. I don't think the medium used is important. This also goes for music whereby the artist / composer uses audio instead of a visual medium.

Tracing over a photograph is photo based art. And who knows where the creator got the photo to "copy" and trace over. I'm guessing the photos used were not taken by the person who did the tracing and may be been used without permission.

I exhibited at an art show once next to a man who traced over photos he took. He used to do illustrations for medical books. I could tell the photos he traced over were his because they were all very average.

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/markpowellart/
http://www.juanfrancis​cocasas.com/es/galeria

yeah, they traced those.

:/

ride5000 wrote in post #14922980
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?

Correction: I made a statement about what I personally want from art. Read my posts properly and maybe you'll better understand my views.