Yeah?

bucephalus9 · Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:02 pm Post subject: Yeah?

i love it! Smile

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

The point to me is that you have a piece of work better than the photo, with ideal lighting, weather and no power lines!
The other reason for photo realism by artists is because they can!

gggraph · Last edited by gggraph on Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

Here it is > .

It's the same as any other form of art: there are people who like doing it, and people who likes looking at it. Somebody who like one of my paintings would probably wonder why Mary Waterhouse has put the legs in the wrong spot.

Cheers

Grant

Devilbiss · Joined: 06 Jul 2007 Posts: 3214

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

Wasn't there a thread somewhere about this subject already? Discussing whether it was really art or just copying the art of the photograph itself, etc.

I can't see the point of it if is simply slavishly reproducing the photograph perfectly, including its compositional flaws, etc. Except as an exercise in technical expertise.

gggraph

I think it's important to draw a distinction between super-realism and photorealism.

The stuff I do is more super-realism (except it's not quite good enough to qualify) insofar as it's not an attempt to duplicate the photo, but to make something that's realer than real, as Wendy pointed out.

I think every artist sees something different in any given scene that they want to capture, - whether it's the light, the movement, the colour or the drugs they were on. In my case, it's the detail and textures. I know there are people who think this approach is old fashioned and psychotic, but given time I will track down where they live.

Grant

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

bucephalus9

Photorealism is not my least favourite art movement. However the photorealistic paintings I've seen in a gallery do look flat like a photograph. I've also seen photorealistic paintings that reproduce the flaws of photography like chromatic aberration. To me that doesn't make sense. I find that impressionism or realist paintings have greater depth and are more vibrant. For example the paintings of the Australian realist artist Robert Hannaford. You only notice this though when you see the works in the flesh and not on the internet.

gggraph

bucephalus9

Yes but why reproduce the flaws of photography like chromatic aberration?

bucephalus9

Who won the golf?

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

gggraph

bucephalus9

Yes I prefer realism to photorealism. Smile

www.adrian-ball.daportfolio.com

Meek · Joined: 25 Feb 2010 Posts: 5

Hi everyone!
I've just discovered Art Forum today and love it! I'm a Perth artist and am very interested in the photorealism topic. I myself "use" photos when I am painting. Although I "change" things in the photograph such as composition, colour and texture I have also painted works that are "exactly" like the photo. Just purely because I have thought the image was perfect and wanted to enjoy the experience of recreating it. Can you ever create a photorealist work anyway? At the end of the day I believe it is an abstract. A combination of mediums, pigments on a canvas or board.
Thats if we need to catergorise it. Paintings should be recognised as more complex than a catergory u can assign them to. Although I am also interested in the overcrossing of different art mediums and how they have become interwoven in I lives. Art is Life, Life is Art!

Thanks for letting me ramble