|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:40 pm
*adds Chiara Albertoni to "artists I hate" list*
that's absolutely ridiculous. i didn't believe the dandelion one was a painting, and then i looked at the other flower one. it's fairly clear.
while this person obviously has a lot of skill, i have to also ask: "what's the point?" I mean...why not just take a picture? photorealism requires skill, but i think that the dirtiness and unrealistic-ness of art is what makes it attractive.
but that's me.
@Martian: I love Cthulhu.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:21 pm
Skills = money. biggrin
They look photorealistic because they mimic the focus change, field of depth, etc. of photographs.
But I personally wouldn't buy them. Because anyone with a somehow decent macro option on their camera and some Photoshop skills can have these same images as photographs.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:24 am
another name to look up: peter greaves my drawing professor had him as a student while he was teaching at the maryland institute college of art. his senior show sold out and he's now represented by forum gallery. you know how hard it is to get into forum gallery? anyways. he has a HUGE waiting list for his stuff, and all he does are tiny portraits of girls. by tiny, i mean, 1x 1.5 in tiny, but he would spend anywhere between 1000 to 1200 hours on each piece, or so i hear. his level of sensitivity is incredible. http://www.forumgallery.com/adetail.php?id=153
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:59 am
in the flicker. *adds Chiara Albertoni to "artists I hate" list* that's absolutely ridiculous. i didn't believe the dandelion one was a painting, and then i looked at the other flower one. it's fairly clear. while this person obviously has a lot of skill, i have to also ask: "what's the point?" I mean...why not just take a picture? photorealism requires skill, but i think that the dirtiness and unrealistic-ness of art is what makes it attractive. but that's me. @Martian: I love Cthulhu. I agree. As a photographer, I wouldn't paint or draw realistically because..well..what's the point..plus I think if you do something which isn't realistic looking, then you're adding your own mark to it..your own uniqueness... how about Richard Young...he's not a famous artist or anything, but he does have a website...I really like his work.. http://www.ryoung-art.com/he has paintings of dancers which are really realistic, but he also has some figurative paintings which are lovely.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:21 pm
Young's website just killed my eyes for the day. ¬_¬
*sigh*
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:50 pm
lol. Interesting that we've come back to photorealism. xd As for the macro thing, t'is interesting. I'm not a huge fan of macro, though, so the picture's going to have to really stand out to make me like it.
I like the concept of knowing the techniques to make something look that good. You have all that texture that you have to be careful not to destroy. Really, the invention of the camera has both opened the world to something and almost obliterated another. After all, who needs a painstakingly worked painting or drawing (that's accurate and doesn't have too many liberties taken with your face or whatnot) done when you can simply find someone with a decent camera and have them take a shot?
Peter Greaves. You said he did stuff like that on 1x1.5 inch stuff?? Holy cow... Locket size!
Richard Young has some interesting stuff.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:23 pm
euclids_triangle Peter Greaves. You said he did stuff like that on 1x1.5 inch stuff?? Holy cow... Locket size! Locket makes me think of ghost stories and whatnot. The skill is undeniable in the above mentioned artists. But as for the utility... Nah. Not things I'd buy and hang on my wall. Oh, questions for you people. Do you know good places for painted reproductions? And do the reproduced work look exactly (well to an extent) like the original?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:08 pm
lol.
Y'know, there are actually very few painting's I'd hang on my wall... Norman Rockwell's got some really neat paintings, and there are a couple others from whom I wouldn't mind a picture, but overall...
Eh, I'm not going to be of much use on the picture reproduction question...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:27 pm
Cause I want this Napoleon painting BAD.
And I don't want to waste 300 something dollars on something that doesn't look like the original.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:15 pm
lol. Fan of Napoleon?
Oy, Merry Christmas, folks! And great news: there's chance I might get snow for Christmas! Not that it'll stick, what with the temp being up around 60 for half of last week... stare But hey, at least it's not the ice we got a few years ago.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:25 pm
60? that's nothing. Last week it was 80 here. 80. WTF.
now it's back to it's usual 50-ish and 40-ish.
i don't think it's ever snowed for Xmas here, lol.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:03 pm
80? Holy cow! Yeah, I just checked the weather again. It ain't going to snow any time soon over here. It's going to be in the 50s and 60s all week. crying So, snow'll be on my wishlist again for one more year, at least. lol.
It's never snowed for Christmas, per say. We got a lot of ice one year that stuck around for about a week, but that's about it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:19 am
You poor, poor people. It never snows here anymore...I wish it did..I miss it. Sledging and building snowman was so much fun heart
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:32 pm
I'm all snowed in. It was 50 a few days ago, so not only am I snowed in but I'm iced in, too. And the whole area was a big cloud on friday. Crappy, crappy weather.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:09 pm
see, it's things like the Oklahoma ice storm which make me glad we don't get real winter weather here, lol.
i still want some chill, though.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|