Could these really be hand drawn??

[jaycee]

If so it's some of the best work that i've seen.

http://www.beautifullife.info/art-works/unbelievable-pencil-art/

[stratman34]

Extreme amount of talent. There are videos around with him demonstrating his technique.




But not much originality and artistic expression... (I KEED, I KEED! :))

[2 Loud 4 You]

Amazing work and never underestimate the talent of artists out there!

[James M]

Just asked a graphic artist friend...he says they look like legit pencil drawings...

[jcmark611]

Call me when he starts drawing naked ladies.

[ShavenYak]

Wow. My favorite:
http://www.beautifullife.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/23/14.jpg
I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

[The Real Tim]

That is just ridiculous. Ridiculously amazing.

[PanicProne]

Extreme amount of talent.

Well said.

[Polynitro]

I guess thats cool and takes a lot of something but I don't see the point really. Just take a picture it only takes a second.

[Darth Tater]

DANG IT SHAVEN YAK! I came back to post that same picture :)
That's gonna give me nightmares.

Oh, when is Kilted Yaksday?

[EricPeterson]

Wow, that is crazy good.

[limfac]

He's a hack until he can draw Robocop.

[hk45acp]

Where's Bob Ross when you need him

[rogwerks]

photoshop!

[Darkburst]

They look real to me. Sure, they show a ton of skill... but zero talent or creativity.

[Ultron]

They look real to me. Sure, they show a ton of skill... but zero talent or creativity.


so is he the Chris Impellitteri of the art world? :munch

[Polynitro]

so is he the Chris Impellitteri of the art world? :munch

Only if he drew these in 1 minute or less

[chrisr777]

I guess thats cool and takes a lot of something but I don't see the point really. Just take a picture it only takes a second.


http://www.beautifullife.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/23/14.jpg



O.K., how long do you think you can get him to hold this pose?

[TNJ]

Kind of a modern day Vermeer or Van Eyck with a pencil.


Pretty amazing.

S.
j

[marcher5877]

They look real to me. Sure, they show a ton of skill... but zero talent or creativity.


Wow. Its amazing how much I disagree.

[MudPies]

Where's Bob Ross when you need him

http://b7.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00940/76/25/940615267_l.jpg

[pmcqueen]

^^hahahaha.

[MudPies]

The eyes really make these amazing to me. Most of the critters have this look I can't explain but it comes from the eyes. Pretty damn talented IMO.

[pmcqueen]

O.K., how long do you think you can get him to hold this pose?

This is pretty close (except wrong angle): edit: wish photobucket hadn't made it all pixelated.
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1481/1268178966990.jpg

[Darkburst]

Wow. Its amazing how much I disagree.

It's just copying an already existing image. That's not too difficult, just time consuming. These drawings are akin to a first year art school project. As someone who has drawn their whole life and makes a living drawing I can tell you that these are nothing special. Maybe they seem like magic if you can't draw.

[Polynitro]

would you guys hang these in your living room?

[JB]

Wow. Its amazing how much I disagree.
+1

The art work is amazing. I've never seen more realistic drawings than these.

[stratovarius]

Most such artists work from photographs.

[sysexguy]

It's just copying an already existing image

:dunno different strokes......you must not go to the symphony very often?

I personally like this and totally respect that what is art, is different for all of us.

Andy

[ImmortalSix]

There is a guy on the Seymour Duncan forum who does drawings as photorealistic as that, but a little more focused on art than photorealism, and he focuses a lot of his art around rock music figures and rock music history.

His name is Iain Stone.

Check out his work (http://iainstone.com/home).

http://iainstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/billyidol.jpg

http://iainstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Jimi1.jpg

[Bulldog]

1.) The drawings are fantastic and display a lot of skill.

2.) I agree Darkburst, though I believe "Talent" was misused and is being misinterpreted. There's skill there which inherently is talent. But these images lack creativity. It's like going out and playing an entire set of cover songs. You may be talented and skilled, but you demonstrate zero creativity playing other people previously created music.

3.) I also believe that the image choices lack any artistic merit. The person creating them is simply not demonstrating any artistic goals/desires other than to shock people that his "artwork" is done in pencil. It's the equivalent of someone pit-farting the entirety of Sgt. Peppers and saying "Look what I can do!"

[CharlieS]

It's just copying an already existing image. That's not too difficult, just time consuming. These drawings are akin to a first year art school project. As someone who has drawn their whole life and makes a living drawing I can tell you that these are nothing special. Maybe they seem like magic if you can't draw.


So, how many (guitar players) artists does it take to change a light bulb?

[enocaster]

Call me when he starts drawing naked ladies.

Not naked, but a lady – painted by my cousin.

http://www.forumgallery.com/product/artist_153_3.jpg

And another:

http://www.forumgallery.com/product/artist_153_5.jpg

[Calaban]

I knew a guy years ago who could do this. He once showed me two images of a class ring and asked me which was the photo and which was the drawing. I couldn't tell them apart so I just guessed. He said they were both drawings. It blew my mind.

And to all the naysayers, just enjoy it for crying out loud.

[Calaban]

1.) It's the equivalent of someone pit-farting the entirety of Sgt. Peppers and saying "Look what I can do!"

Well, except for the part about making it sound exactly like Sgt. Peppers......but I suppose that's just a minor detail in this discussion ;)

[SideBMusic]

Just asked a graphic artist friend...he says they look like legit pencil drawings...

Yep, they are. I used to do some work similar to them, although my style was a little more generalized. I remember being in art shows and people thinking they were photographs. I can't believe I used to be that anal. :roll

[ShavenYak]

There is a guy on the Seymour Duncan forum who does drawings as photorealistic as that, but a little more focused on art than photorealism, and he focuses a lot of his art around rock music figures and rock music history.

His name is Iain Stone.

Check out his work (http://iainstone.com/home).

Those are really cool, but they aren't going to fool anyone into thinking they're photographs. In my opinion, that's a better approach for his subject matter - I don't know that a super photorealistic image of Jimi is really what anyone wants to see.

The artist in the OP, however... his drawings of animals work better with the high level of realism. Artistic renderings of animals are a dime a dozen. The folks who are saying his work is nothing special because it's "not that hard" are missing the point a bit. You know, the tapped parts of Eruption aren't really that hard to play, either. It doesn't make it any less cool.

[hk45acp]

All form, no content. For those who went to art school

[nnick]

Damn

[ivers]

I used to draw and paint as a kid, and loved it, but my talent wasn't such that I could go anywhere with it and it lost out to music fairly swift when I got my hands on a guitar (not that I got very far with that either, but I still think it was a better horse to bet on).

So.. from my experiences and perspective as a hack...those pictures are amazing, and I would really love to be able to do it. Of course they don't give me as much as an original painting by any of my favorite artists, but the pictures are nice enough to look at.

I'd think a person would have to be somewhat creative to solve a task like that as well. I mean it's not just doing it, right? I guess you gotta come up with the techniques to properly capture everything that goes on?

[Darkburst]

All form, no content. For those who went to art school

Some people are impressed with technique, which is far easier to develop than creativity. They also look like they were lightbox'd or grid'd out at the very least. Most of the students in Andy Gerndt's foundation drawing class at SVA can draw like this by the end of the school year.

[stevieboy]

It's an common point in art history classes that the invention of photography "freed" artists from having to concentrate on realistic rendering, and led to all the various abstract approaches of the 20th century.

I do agree to a point that it's be a bit odd to spend that kind of time and effort to do something that is better and more easily done with a another medium other than as a way to master a technique. I would simply say that while I'm impressed with the technique, I don't really want to look at more examples of it. I do think that someone could take the technical aspect and go to some very interesting places with it. The appearance of reality of a photograph combined with complete freedom to create the content.

[ACfixer]

And the corksniffers are out in force...

Ok ok, you that DO have "talent and creativity", let's see your pencil drawings that blow these away.

[bigdaddy]

As someone who has drawn their whole life and still can't get a handle on realism, no matter how hard I try, I can tell you that these are nothing special.


Fixed.


P.S. Those are nothing compared to the work of Chuck Close.

http://djdesign.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chuck-close.jpg

[Darkburst]

And the corksniffers are out in force...

Ok ok, you that DO have "talent and creativity", let's see your pencil drawings that blow these away.

The image already exists as a photograph. How is slavishly copying it creative? Why would an artist waste their time doing that when they could be creating a new image?

It's like the guitar players who learn EVH's Eruption note for note. It shows a lot of skill, but zero creativity. It's just copying something that another artist created. It's good for building technique, but it's not art.

I'm not going to waste 40 or more hours copying a picture of someone's cat to post here. Links to my art are in my signature. I've done a lot of illustration, design, photography and cartooning. None of my drawings are that realistic because that's what photography is for... which I also do.

[MudPies]

The image already exists as a photograph. How is slavishly copying it creative? Why would an artist waste their time doing that when they could be creating a new image?

It's like the guitar players who learn EVH's Eruption note for note. It shows a lot of skill, but zero creativity. It's just copying something that another artist created. It's good for building technique, but it's not art.

I'm not going to waste 40 or more hours copying a picture of someone's cat to post here. Links to my art are in my signature. I've done a lot of illustration, design, photography and cartooning. None of my drawings are that realistic because that's what photography is for... which I also do.

It's not your way so it's nothing special? Are those of us who give the artist props wrong?

I'm so confused.

:dunno

[stratzrus]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/blanchneko/OMAGGIOACARAVAGGIO.jpg

[sunburstrat]

Its there because thats what he chose to do. All you armchair art critics and your comments about lack of anything is just ignorance. These show the talents of an amazing artist and all you do is knock him down. I would hate to live in your world.

[ABKB]

To each his own. I LOVE the work! :aok

[Darkburst]

It's not your way so it's nothing special? Are those of us who give the artist props wrong?

I'm so confused.

:dunno

Because it's not art. It's a copy of someone else's image. It says nothing and has no meaning. It's craft at best.

I can appreciate a lot of artists who's work is nothing like my own. From prehistoric cave paintings to old master paintings to commercial illustrators like Frank Frazetta and Bob Peak. Artists have a personal view on the world that is communicated through their work.

[MudPies]

Because it's not art. It's a copy of someone else's image. It says nothing and has no meaning. It's craft at best.

I can appreciate a lot of artists who's work is nothing like my own. From prehistoric cave paintings to old master paintings to commercial illustrators like Frank Frazetta and Bob Peak. Artists have a personal view on the world that is communicated through their work.

Welp, I think it's art. I like it. No biggy.

:aok

[Scott Miller]

As photographs, they would be nicely done with the lighting and all, but the images themselves are mostly pretty boring. The same is true of them as pencil drawings.

Let's imagine that we change the images to, say, a turd, or a puddle of vomit, just as beautifully rendered. Would the skillful rendering still be enough to make them great? Or at least likeable?

[sausagefingers]

He should try to draw a liger. It's pretty much my favorite animal.

[Flyin' Brian]

It's just copying an already existing image. That's not too difficult, just time consuming. These drawings are akin to a first year art school project. As someone who has drawn their whole life and makes a living drawing I can tell you that these are nothing special. Maybe they seem like magic if you can't draw.

We're waiting for your examples of talent........

[Tom CT]

Because it's not art. It's a copy of someone else's image. It says nothing and has no meaning. It's craft at best.

Just like a symphony orchestra playing Mozart, right? It's not creative since the notes are already written down - the musicians just have to put their fingers in the right place at the right time. Any first-year music student could play it, as there's nothing creative or talented about it.

/sarcasm

[Darkburst]

We're waiting for your examples of talent........

Sorry I didn't keep my art school exercises from the mid 90's. Links to my work are in my signature. Maybe you'll be impressed with my slavish recreation of the borders, typography and other misc details on the one dollar bill. This was created from scratch with the exception of a few fonts:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2584995793_91bd83897e_o.jpg

Sorry it's not pencil renderings of kitty cats.

[Darkburst]

Just like a symphony orchestra playing Mozart, right? It's not creative since the notes are already written down - the musicians just have to put their fingers in the right place at the right time. Any first-year music student could play it, as there's nothing creative or talented about it.

/sarcasm

That shows skill, not creativity. Mozart was the genius not the performers. I know many of you aren't going to agree with me. But most of you aren't artists, so you don't understand the difference.

[MudPies]

So we are wrong then?

[Darkburst]

So we are wrong then?

You can't be wrong for liking something. That's your opinion. My point is that art is more than copying someone else's image.

[stevieboy]

Jeez not the "post your clips" thing. Can't we have opinions about anything here? Post a link to your feature film before you can say if you like a movie?

Okay, you win here's mine. It's not finished of course, but when it is, it's gonna be AWESOME!

http://www.filebuzz.com/software_screenshot/full/188719-SegPlayPC.gif

[sunburstrat]

That shows skill, not creativity. Mozart was the genius not the performers. I know many of you aren't going to agree with me. But most of you aren't artists, so you don't understand the difference.


What a pompous statement. Your snobbery and maybe even some jealousy is seeping through. I can only imagine when you are listening to other guitarists, "I can do that better, he is not creative, but you wouldnt understand". Again, I would hate to live in your world.

[Darkburst]

What a pompous statement. Your snobbery and maybe even some jealousy is seeping through. I can only imagine when you are listening to other guitarists, "I can do that better, he is not creative, but you wouldnt understand". Again, I would hate to live in your world.

Sorry you feel that way. There's no jealously involved though. I don't see it as snobbery either. I had formal art training, study art history and make art almost every day. My understanding of creating art is going to be deeper than someone who is just a viewer. Since I'm just a mediocre hobbyist guitar player, I don't think I'm better than anyone who's making a living at it.

Also drawing more realistically isn't 'better'. It is a good way to improve your overall draftsmanship and eye/hand coordination. That's why you learn how to draw and paint realistically in art school before you go off to try and be creative. Skill and technique is not the end all be all of art.

[hk45acp]

I guess the best way to explain the "hate" would be to compare it to someone who can play Flight of the Bumblebee on guitar note for note but couldn't write Blitzkrieg Bop

[Ultron]

didn't Norman Rockwell work off of photographs? Same with Alex Ross. Does that make them any less of an artist.

FFS, the jackassery runs amok at this place.

[hk45acp]

didn't Norman Rockwell work off of photographs? Same with Alex Ross. Does that make them any less of an artist.

FFS, the jackassery runs amok at this place.

FWIW many fine artists do not consider Rockwell an artist, more of an illustrator. That's why you don't see Rockwells hanging in the Met

[enocaster]

Just like a symphony orchestra playing Mozart, right? It's not creative since the notes are already written down - the musicians just have to put their fingers in the right place at the right time. Any first-year music student could play it, as there's nothing creative or talented about it.

/sarcasm

An orchestra playing Mozart has no official, composer-approved audio version of the music, so there is room for artistic interpretation. They transform printed sheet music to sound waves. This guy is an incredibly skilled, but ineffiecient Xerox machine transforming an image on paper to a near identical image on paper.

[Ultron]

FWIW many fine artists do not consider Rockwell an artist, more of an illustrator. That's why you don't see Rockwells hanging in the Met


There is one at The Met, "Freedom of Speech"

[Darkburst]

didn't Norman Rockwell work off of photographs? Same with Alex Ross. Does that make them any less of an artist.

FFS, the jackassery runs amok at this place.

Using photo reference isn't the same as copying someone else's photos. Norman Rockwell and Alex Ross use photos as a tool to create their vision. Neither try to make exact copies of the photo reference. They have a very distinct artistic vision and visual interpretation of reality. It's not hard to identify a Rockwell or Ross piece because of that. I enjoy their work and have great respect for both of them.

Some examples for people:

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/normanrockwell36.jpg

http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/alex_ross_superman_batman_posters.jpg

[hk45acp]

I stand corrected. I do not believe however it is on display as I've never seen it on my many trips there

[enocaster]

Using photo reference isn't the same as copying someone else's photos. Norman Rockwell and Alex Ross use photos as a tool to create their vision. Neither try to make exact copies of the photo reference. They have a very distinct artistic vision and visual interpretation of reality. It's not hard to identify a Rockwell or Ross piece because of that. I enjoy their work and have great respect for both of them.

Exactly. Give the same reference photo to ten artists and get back ten different works; give it to ten draftsmen and you'll get ten nearly identical copies.

(typed a block away from Rockwell's old studio in Stockbridge, MA)

[MudPies]

I still say it's art.

[Ultron]

Using photo reference isn't the same as copying someone else's photos. Norman Rockwell and Alex Ross use photos as a tool to create their vision. Neither try to make exact copies of the photo reference. They have a very distinct artistic vision and visual interpretation of reality. It's not hard to identify a Rockwell or Ross piece because of that. I enjoy their work and have great respect for both of them.

Some examples for people:

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/normanrockwell36.jpg

http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/alex_ross_superman_batman_posters.jpg


agreed....:aok

[Darkburst]

Exactly. Give the same reference photo to ten artists and get back ten different works; give it to ten draftsmen and you'll get ten nearly identical copies.

(typed a block away from Rockwell's old studio in Stockbridge, MA)

Rockwell and Ross also took most of the photos that their art is based on. Picking the location, angles, models, props, etc. They're making artist choice as opposed to copying someone else's work.

[solphilcox]

Sorry I didn't keep my art school exercises from the mid 90's. Links to my work are in my signature. Maybe you'll be impressed with my slavish recreation of the borders, typography and other misc details on the one dollar bill. This was created from scratch with the exception of a few fonts:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2584995793_91bd83897e_o.jpg

Sorry it's not pencil renderings of kitty cats.


hahahahahaha.

surely you can't be serious??

[Scott Miller]

I still say it's art.

I agree. It's just not very good art. Use that awesome technique to create an image worth looking at, then we've got something.

[Scott Miller]

Here's mine:

http://www.waxmoth.com/scottm_art/scottm_art.html

[hk45acp]

hahahahahaha.

surely you can't be serious??

I'm sure he is. . . and don't call him Shirley

[Darkburst]

Here's mine:

http://www.waxmoth.com/scottm_art/scottm_art.html

Whoah, those are some wild paintings! Cool stuff.

:aok

[Mikey2201]

I thought they were photos- WOW

[RonH]

I agree. It's just not very good art. Use that awesome technique to create an image worth looking at, then we've got something.

I think the images are worth looking at so he is doing exactly that. I would also say that I prefer his work to what many call art.

That being said, this is what I call insanely talented.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/518XP8prwZo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/518XP8prwZo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[bigdaddy]

FWIW many fine artists do not consider Rockwell an artist, more of an illustrator. That's why you don't see Rockwells hanging in the Met

Since when do fine artists decide what hangs at the Met. Those folks are called curators...

[hk45acp]

Since when do fine artists decide what hangs at the Met. Those folks are called curators...

Didn't say that fine artists decide what hangs in the Met, you said that.
I said many fine artists do not consider Rockwell to be a "fine" artist but more of an illustrator. You don't find many, if any reference to Rockwell in art history books unless it's under "folk" art which is a different category than "fine" art. Just telling the people here what the predominate views are of many artists. This is from my experience in art school and working in galleries, you may disagree as is your right. However the discussion was on the "merits" of the artist the OP presented.

[Polynitro]

art

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p161/cgravier_bucket/pencilsquire.jpg

[hk45acp]

art

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p161/cgravier_bucket/pencilsquire.jpg

something we can all agree on, except maybe the Tele haters!

[marcher5877]

...My point is that art is more than copying someone else's image.


Tell that to this guy:
http://academics.adelphi.edu/honcol/modconart/img/Warhol-campbellsoup.jpg

[BobbyFudge]

Try some Patrick Lee...
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t22/BobbyFudge/Hoodie.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t22/BobbyFudge/eDFHead18.jpg

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t22/BobbyFudge/eDFHead16_NoCaption.jpg
[IMG

[Gibson 1964]

I really very much prefer realistic art to most "art" which is about an agenda.

What was the "artistic" value of the Mona Lisa?

Actually, I think lots of the finest art which is unrealistic is ancient.

But art is very much a matter of taste. I can marvel at the super-realistic depiction of a Babylonian Griffin pendant made of gold. (even though griffins never existed)

I can agree that a lot of art takes talent and creativity, but I must say, nobody has posted original work in the thread that I personally prefer to the pencil drawings originally posted.

I am not a graphic artist. I don't pretend to be. But I prefer art to be beautiful than full of "meaning."

[Darkburst]

Tell that to this guy:
http://academics.adelphi.edu/honcol/modconart/img/Warhol-campbellsoup.jpg

That's still a graphic representation of a Campell's Soup can and not a photo realistic rendering. Warhol's art also has a lot of humor while making an artistic statement. He's not my favorite, but I respect what he brought to the art scene of the day.

Patrick Lee also takes the photos of his subjects. So it's his artistic vision all the way.

[Darkburst]

I really very much prefer realistic art to most "art" which is about an agenda.

What was the "artistic" value of the Mona Lisa?

Actually, I think lots of the finest art which is unrealistic is ancient.

But art is very much a matter of taste. I can marvel at the super-realistic depiction of a Babylonian Griffin pendant made of gold. (even though griffins never existed)

I can agree that a lot of art takes talent and creativity, but I must say, nobody has posted original work in the thread that I personally prefer to the pencil drawings originally posted.

I am not a graphic artist. I don't pretend to be. But I prefer art to be beautiful than full of "meaning."

Well, then you enjoy craft and decoration more than art. What you call an agenda is artist statement. If you're not revealing anything about your perspective as human being in your work then you're not making art.

[MudPies]

Well, then you enjoy craft and decoration more than art. What you call an agenda is artist statement. If you're not revealing anything about your perspective as human being in your work then you're not making art.

Why are you having trouble accepting that other people have a slightly different definition of what "art" is? No offense intended, I just don't get it.

[Darkburst]

Why are you having trouble accepting that other people have a slightly different definition of what "art" is? No offense intended, I just don't get it.

Maybe other people should study art history and criticism to better understand what art is and isn't. There are differences between art, craft, decoration, design, etc.

[atquinn]

Here's mine:

http://www.waxmoth.com/scottm_art/scottm_art.html

Great stuff!

-Austin

[MudPies]

Maybe other people should study art history and criticism to better understand what art is and isn't. There are differences between art, craft, decoration, design, etc.

You just don't get it. I'll try to be done with this now.

[stevieboy]

I really very much prefer realistic art to most "art" which is about an agenda.

What was the "artistic" value of the Mona Lisa?

Actually, I think lots of the finest art which is unrealistic is ancient.

But art is very much a matter of taste. I can marvel at the super-realistic depiction of a Babylonian Griffin pendant made of gold. (even though griffins never existed)

I can agree that a lot of art takes talent and creativity, but I must say, nobody has posted original work in the thread that I personally prefer to the pencil drawings originally posted.

I am not a graphic artist. I don't pretend to be. But I prefer art to be beautiful than full of "meaning."

I don't think anyone is saying realistic art is not good. But when I look at realistic paintings I like, what makes them interesting to me is the ways that the individual artists visually interpret and depict that realism. Maybe another way to say it is in how they are realistic, and yet vary from that realism at the same time. There are many many great artists that have made realistic paintings, yet they are all different from each other in appealing ways.

It doesn't mean it has have some underlying message. Some people want that from art, others don't care, it's a visual thing, the "beauty" you're talking about. It's my opinion and that of some others here (but you are absolutely entitled to think otherwise) that the drawings here are fairly mundane images. The only thing I can see about them that's interesting is the work that went into them. How many here would even notice them if it weren't for the surprise that they are drawings not photos? I don't discount the skill that went into them, I just want something more than that, even just a little deviation that would give them some spice.

[hk45acp]

Art is subjective, yet as with things that are subjective, it can be critique thru certain benchmarks. One can argue what those benchmarks might be but, they are there. Art in simplest terms can be broken down into 2 parts: Form and Content.
Form is the physical aspect, what it looks like, how is it executed
Content is what the piece of art is trying to convey to the viewer.

Warhol's Soup can is an example of Content over Form. When it came out many debated whether or not it could be considered art. Warhol's belief of everyday objects as art and art as commerce is the message of the piece. That's Content. The form is a simple silkscreen illustration. Combined it makes a powerful statement. Sometimes that statement is not readily apparent to the layman. That's why if you want to understand art, sometimes you need a guide. To the layman FreeJazz is just horrible noise but a musician that studies the form understands what the musician is doing/saying. There's art and there's "fine" art. Fine art has powerful form AND content

[Johnnytone]

I agree with you Darkburst (Art Director for 22 years). Guy has mad skills but the work does not evoke any emotion for me.

Kinda like that guy who won 'World's Fastest Guitarist." I saw him on Youtube and he was certainly fast, but so boring.

[Shiro]

If an Artist sets out to create the illusion of a Photograph, with just a pencil and a piece of paper, is that art? What if he didn't have a Photo to copy...just set out to create an image that looks like a Photo? I'm so f***ing confused about what I thought were some pretty cool drawings!

[Gibson 1964]

Well, then you enjoy craft and decoration more than art. What you call an agenda is artist statement. If you're not revealing anything about your perspective as human being in your work then you're not making art.


Other than arbitrary statements made on what you believe art to be, why must one make a statement?

Seriously, what statement did the mona lisa make?

And your declaritive statements about what art is, seem to me to only apply to the last hundred years or so.

What statement did the artisans who made the venus de milo make?

The items may seem mundane. However, I would be willing to bet there was a reason these objects were chosen, even if you and I are not privy to it.

[stevieboy]

... what I thought were some pretty cool drawings!

That's what matters. Others just see it differently, like with everything else.

[stevieboy]

Seriously, what statement did the mona lisa make?



An aesthetic one. The word "statement" might not be the best one here because it implies that it's about an idea that can be put into words. Many words have been written about the Mona Lisa, over centuries, and Da Vinci may well have had underlying literal meanings that would mostly be for his contemporaries, and historic implications, and all kinds of other aspects that art historians could dwell on. But the "meaning" of the painting comes from the experience of looking at it.

[bsuite]

Ya, whats the point of learning to play an instrument, just buy a cd.
:dunno

I guess thats cool and takes a lot of something but I don't see the point really. Just take a picture it only takes a second.

[bsuite]

I thought they were excellent until the TGP artist police clued me in.
I think the guy that drew those should be ashamed of himself for trying to deceive me.
Whew! that was close! thanks guys. ;)

[Polynitro]

anything and everything is art. Picasso was an awesome drawer too but thats not why hes famous

[Polynitro]

Ya, whats the point of learning to play an instrument, just buy a cd.
:dunno

I dont see that analogy working at all. More like buy a cover band CD. Yes it takes a lot of skill to play covers exactly like the original but that doesn't mean Ill appreciate it for more than just that its hard to do. Is that all art is a contest to see how real a pencil drawing can be? I mean its cool, and all but bottom line Im not gonna hang it on my wall or go see it at a gallery, (unless it was like 10 feet tall or done on a piece of rice, or the artist was 2 years old, or 102, or blind or had no hands)

[smiert spionam]

I'm pretty ecumenical about what qualifies as art. I do think it should serve some purpose or intention, though, and not just be an act of transcription.

If it's art, what is the guy trying to say?

[Clumsy Fingers]

And the corksniffers are out in force...

Ok ok, you that DO have "talent and creativity", let's see your pencil drawings that blow these away.

Cork sniffer here, and proud of it.

I imagine that most everyone here with a BFA/MFA isn't that impressed because, frankly, we all had a fellow student or two in our drawing classes who could do work like this. If you're impressed with the technical virtuosity, that's your right. But, as snobbish as this sounds, those of us who spent years studying visual art probably aren't impressed because, well, it's really got very little to do with drawing (that is to say, seeing).

Enjoy the work, but don't disparage those of us who've spent years educating ourselves on the finer points of the visual language.


Peace.

[jazzandmetal?]

That is really amazing artwork.

[Scott Miller]

we all had a fellow student or two in our drawing classes who could do work like this.

BFA/MFA here, and in my case, it was the illustration majors who could do this kind of stuff. They had incredible rendering skills, and it was basically just expected of them. And the illustration professors were even more amazing.

We fine arts majors had more fun, though, because we could get naked and call it art.

[schmidlin]

I still can't believe this thread is such a hot topic. U like it or U don't. Who cares what you call it? But it IS realism, commonly understood as an art form. Pretty amazing work, IMHO. Kudos to the pencil-drawers (usually known as artists).

[Darkburst]

I still can't believe this thread is such a hot topic. U like it or U don't. Who cares what you call it? But it IS realism, commonly understood as an art form. Pretty amazing work, IMHO. Kudos to the pencil-drawers (usually known as artists).

No one is debating the validity of realism. There are plenty of fine artists and illustrators that I respect and admire that draw or paint realistic images. What I'm saying, is making a detailed copy of National Geographic photos and snapshots of someone else's cat is not art. They're well executed but meaningless renderings.

If you like the drawings, fine. You have a right to that opinion. Don't expect everyone to be impressed with them.

Here are some 'realistic' artists I enjoy:

John Singer Sargent
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/masterscans/sargent-nonchaloir-repose-mid.jpg

Frank Frazetta
http://esdev.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank_frazetta_savagepellucidar-434x560.jpg

Lucian Freud
http://internationalpsychoanalysis.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/lucian-freud-artwork.jpg

Robert Williams
http://www.danteross.com/blogs/dante/files/2009/07/robert-williams-pavilion-of-red-clown1.jpg

[* velcro-fly *]

wow..looks pretty freaking real to me. Love it, but then I only have a simple BA.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs5/i/2004/270/d/9/Amused_with_detail_by_offshore.jpg

[schmidlin]

Yes. So what about photography?

[jimfog]

I don't know what I like, but I DO know art!

[yeahyeahyeah]

I think there is merit in photorealisim. Its cool to look at in mediums like paint where you can see individual brushstrokes up close.

IMHO, more science than art and it's nothing that hasn't been done before.

Photography also falls into this category for me, especially since the onset of digital cameras. Now anyone with enough cash buys a nice SLR and calls themselves a photographer. My grandfather was a master photographer and taught me how to use a manual 35mm at a young age, later I learned how to develop film and other darkroom tricks. It used to be you had to know your shit to MAKE good pictures, now it's just point and shoot. Even in the film age it was mostly science but it sure as hell seemed more artistic to me.

[* velcro-fly *]

Because it's not art. It's a copy of someone else's image. It says nothing and has no meaning. It's craft at best.

I can appreciate a lot of artists who's work is nothing like my own. From prehistoric cave paintings to old master paintings to commercial illustrators like Frank Frazetta and Bob Peak. Artists have a personal view on the world that is communicated through their work.

I just figured out that you're the guy doing the graphics on the Deathwish boards..thats some sick shit! I checked out your portfolio and photos - killer work man.

[schmidlin]

I simply admire the talent. Call it what you want.

[Darkburst]

I just figured out that you're the guy doing the graphics on the Deathwish boards..thats some sick shit! I checked out your portfolio and photos - killer work man.

Thanks man. I love working with the guys at Deathwish. In fact I'm working on a new graphic for them this week.

[DC1]

You can't be wrong for liking something. That's your opinion. My point is that art is more than copying someone else's image.

Frankly, a good artist would be less dismissive and condescending towards others.

Anyone who thinks this is not talent, has some odd definitions...


http://www.beautifullife.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/23/01.jpg


Playing Mozart perfectly is also talent.

dc

[Darkburst]

It used to be you had to know your shit to MAKE good pictures, now it's just point and shoot. Even in the film age it was mostly science but it sure as hell seemed more artistic to me.

There's a lot of technical aspects to photography, but it still takes an artistic eye to capture a great image. Unfortunately digital cameras have attracted a lot of people who normally would be turned off by the work involved in traditional photography. So now the market is flooded and rates are down unless you're already an established photographer.

[Darkburst]

Frankly, a good artist would be less dismissive and condescending towards others.

Clearly you don't know many artists.

:D


Anyone who thinks this is not talent, has some odd definitions...


Maybe you should look up the definition of talent and compare it to the definition of skill.

[DC1]

No one, no matter their education, resume, or portfolio, can determine what is, or isn't art.

Why not?

Because even among these folks, there is no real consensus.

Therefore, the whole activity of placing oneself in the position of determining what is and is not art, is doomed. It appears, more than anything else, to be a way to assert who is in a certain club, and who is out.

Well count me out.

It's all art. It sure ain't auto repair.

Is it good art? Well make your case that it is bad if you can. So far I am not impressed with your case, and you certainly are not making the case that it is not art.

It is manifestly art.

dc

[DC1]

Clearly you don't know many artists.

:D

You neither, from the looks of things.




Maybe you should look up the definition of talent and compare it to the definition of skill.

Skill is always built on, and based upon, talent, my arrogant friend.

dc

[PanaDP]

I guess thats cool and takes a lot of something but I don't see the point really. Just take a picture it only takes a second.

Art's about the journey, the process, and the thoughts involved. It's not necessarily about the final product. If you can only think about the shortest line fro A to B, I hope you're an engineer, a programmer, etc. because that's where your mind is best suited.

Also, a fine photograph doesn't take "only a second." I've worked on photographs for probably longer than that guy worked on some of those drawings.

[colin617]

2 points:

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

2)To quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it." (I am, of course, talking about art. He meant hardcore pornography)

[Zero G]

Love it!

[Darkburst]

You neither, from the looks of things.

Most of my friends are artists and other creative types actually. Nice attempt at an insult though.

Skill is always built on, and based upon, talent, my arrogant friend.

I don't agree. You can teach skills, you cannot teach talent. Anyone with the desire to draw can be taught how. That doesn't mean they can create a great piece of art. That takes talent.

:wave

[Polynitro]

I think there is merit in photorealisim. Its cool to look at in mediums like paint where you can see individual brushstrokes up close.

IMHO, more science than art and it's nothing that hasn't been done before.

Photography also falls into this category for me, especially since the onset of digital cameras. Now anyone with enough cash buys a nice SLR and calls themselves a photographer. My grandfather was a master photographer and taught me how to use a manual 35mm at a young age, later I learned how to develop film and other darkroom tricks. It used to be you had to know your shit to MAKE good pictures, now it's just point and shoot. Even in the film age it was mostly science but it sure as hell seemed more artistic to me.


Meh...Henri Cartier just point and shot, and Cindy Sherman failed her develope and print class in college.

[DC1]

I don't agree. You can teach skills, you cannot teach talent. Anyone with the desire to draw can be taught how. That doesn't mean they can create a great piece of art. That takes talent.

:wave


No, you must have talent in order to learn skills. Desire is not enough. I have taught for many years and I can tell you that that there is no teaching skills where there is no talent. It is a talent you do not value, so you pretend it is not there. Good luck with that.

You, of course, prefer your opaque and flat cartoon illustrations, and hope that, because they are unique, (not original mind you) but unique, that this creativity will be considered more valuable to others than what is clearly much more sophisticated art than your own. This is nothing but marketing and is pretty transparent here.

After all, you clearly do not want to be held to the very high standard of the work under discussion, so you call it "not art".

Absurd and laughable.

It is clearly art and represents a very strong talent.

Is it great art? Well, I prefer Kandinsky, but that owl rocks.

dc

[MOJO]

incredible job, they look just like photo's, funny though i couldn't help
but think of High School yearbook photo's as i was looking at them...

[Mike7]

You guys are too funny. Does no one see the images he has stealthy hidden in those drawings ?

[DC1]

You guys are too funny. Does no one see the images he has stealthy hidden in those drawings ?

Dang! Now I need a beer!


:eeks



dc

[Tom CT]

That is really amazing artwork.

Sanity has been restored. Thank you. :bow

[Scott Miller]

i couldn't help but think of High School yearbook photo's as i was looking at them...

Actually, that aspect of it is the only interesting thing about it. To me. Especially the lion: definitely the class dork! I doubt that it's intentional; more like the artist simply chose to draw the most impressive part of the animal. I mean, a bear's body... hard to draw that and make it interesting.

[Darkburst]

No, you must have talent in order to learn skills. Desire is not enough. I have taught for many years and I can tell you that that there is no teaching skills where there is no talent. It is a talent you do not value, so you pretend it is not there. Good luck with that.

Does it take talent to learn to read, write, use a computer, cook a meal or tie your shoes? I don't think so. They're skills that almost everyone learns. Drawing isn't any different. I would sometimes sit in on one of my drawing teachers continuing ed life drawing classes and watch people with almost no previous drawing skills get pretty damn good in one semester.

Anyway, I do value talent though I don't define it the way you do.


You, of course, prefer your opaque and flat cartoon illustrations, and hope that, because they are unique, (not original mind you) but unique, that this creativity will be considered more valuable to others than what is clearly much more sophisticated art than your own. This is nothing but marketing and is pretty transparent here.


I choose to do more graphic work because that's what I like to do, not be because I can't do anything else. I had formal drawing and painting classes from high school through college. My work started off realistic, but as I got more interested in animation and graphic design my style reflected that. I still go to figure drawing classes once in a while to keep those skills sharp. Copying someone else's photo is not sophisticated. It's a good tool for developing skills. That's why we had classes where professors would take us to the Met and we'd copy old master paintings, drawings and sculpture. I'm not marketing or selling anything either. Not sure where you're getting that from.

I still do exercises based on photos. Especially caricature:

http://brianromero.com/blog/2007/05_may/iggy_study.jpg


After all, you clearly do not want to be held to the very high standard of the work under discussion, so you call it "not art".


It's not a high standard, sorry. As I stated earlier this is the kind of exercise I've done in my foundation drawing class my first year at SVA. I've also stated that I've got nothing against photo realistic art either. I'm simply not impressed with copying.


Absurd and laughable. It is clearly art and represents a very strong talent.


That's your opinion and I don't agree with it.


Is it great art? Well, I prefer Kandinsky, but that owl rocks.


At least we can agree to prefer Kandinsky over the owl.

Maybe I'll render a photorealistic version of my pug sleeping on the couch for all you sophisticated art lovers. It'll have to be a small drawing since I don't have 40 plus hours to put into copying a photo.

[hk45acp]

Maybe I'll render a photorealistic version of my pug sleeping on the couch for all you sophisticated art lovers. It'll have to be a small drawing since I don't have 40 plus hours to put into copying a photo.

Make sure it matches the couch ;)

[Darkburst]

After checking the link to this guy's stuff on Deviant Art I take back what I said about this guy. I was wrong. There's a lot of work on there that's clearly based on his own photos that actually tell some stories and his perspective on life. Especially his family portraits. The initial link in this post doesn't really represent this guy's work. It's like they chose the most impressive renderings with the least amount soul. I shouldn't have judged his work based on that initial link. I can admit when I'm wrong. I suggest people check out this link:

http://paullung.deviantart.com/gallery/

As my own punishment I will render a photorealistic drawing of my dog. In fact I'll create a thread to show the whole process once I start.

[MudPies]

In fact I'll create a thread to show the whole process once I start.

That's pretty cool. I actually look forward to that.

[bsuite]

Yes ,your analogy is better.
You still knew what I meant, so I guess mine was good enough.
I don't see what all the fuss is.
This is no different than another musician not liking Lady Gaga's or JM's "art" or "craft" or whatever you want to call it.
To some it's art, to others is something else.
I don't care for either but to say it's not an artform & a craft or talent is
just sour grapes.
To me, it says "look at me, I can do that too."

Bottom line, some people like it, some people, not so much.
It's still very cool & not everyone can do it.



I dont see that analogy working at all. More like buy a cover band CD. Yes it takes a lot of skill to play covers exactly like the original but that doesn't mean Ill appreciate it for more than just that its hard to do. Is that all art is a contest to see how real a pencil drawing can be? I mean its cool, and all but bottom line Im not gonna hang it on my wall or go see it at a gallery, (unless it was like 10 feet tall or done on a piece of rice, or the artist was 2 years old, or 102, or blind or had no hands)

[bsuite]

Very "standup" Darkburst.
& I think your work is awesome also.

After checking the link to this guy's stuff on Deviant Art I take back what I said about this guy. I was wrong. There's a lot of work on there that's clearly based on his own photos that actually tell some stories and his perspective on life. Especially his family portraits. The initial link in this post doesn't really represent this guy's work. It's like they chose the most impressive renderings with the least amount soul. I shouldn't have judged his work based on that initial link. I can admit when I'm wrong. I suggest people check out this link:

http://paullung.deviantart.com/gallery/

As my own punishment I will render a photorealistic drawing of my dog. In fact I'll create a thread to show the whole process once I start.

[Darkburst]

For those that like photorealism, rock n' roll and blues I suggest checking out Sebastian Kruger:

http://sebastian-kruger-news.blogspot.com/

He's one of my favorite caricaturists.

http://www.limelightagency.com/Sebastian-Kruger/images/Press/mojo/keef.jpg

[bsuite]

I love this stuff!


For those that like photorealism, rock n' roll and blues I suggest checking out Sebastian Kruger:

http://sebastian-kruger-news.blogspot.com/

He's one of my favorite caricaturists.

http://www.limelightagency.com/Sebastian-Kruger/images/Press/mojo/keef.jpg

[smiert spionam]

Thanks for the link to his other work, DB.

I agree with you that the stuff linked originally was technically adept, but still empty mimicry.

[LHanson]

Interesting. So some will define art as needing a story, or a reason, or an emotional content?

So the "art" can't be art on it's own merits? Before we can enjoy it, we have to magically crawl through the artist's ears and slosh around in his skull for a while?

[smiert spionam]

No, but it ought to be about something. Those images mostly looked like technique exercises.

[DrSax]

No, you must have talent in order to learn skills. Desire is not enough. I have taught for many years and I can tell you that that there is no teaching skills where there is no talent. It is a talent you do not value, so you pretend it is not there. Good luck with that.

You, of course, prefer your opaque and flat cartoon illustrations, and hope that, because they are unique, (not original mind you) but unique, that this creativity will be considered more valuable to others than what is clearly much more sophisticated art than your own. This is nothing but marketing and is pretty transparent here.

After all, you clearly do not want to be held to the very high standard of the work under discussion, so you call it "not art".

Absurd and laughable.

It is clearly art and represents a very strong talent.

Is it great art? Well, I prefer Kandinsky, but that owl rocks.

dc

This reeks of opinion and ideology as much (actually, moreso) than Darkburst's posts. The difference is Darkbust's opinions have more weight. Yep, it's true.

I still really like the drawings in the OP. But I prefer to look at Darkbursts stuff.

You can enjoy things for what they are.

[enocaster]

Interesting. So some will define art as needing a story, or a reason, or an emotional content?

So the "art" can't be art on it's own merits? Before we can enjoy it, we have to magically crawl through the artist's ears and slosh around in his skull for a while?

Yes. The story, reason, and emotional content are the merits. A pretty picture is just… a pretty picture.
One could make a strong argument that Barry Manilow's voice is more sonically pleasing or "pretty" than Bob Dylan's, but he doesn't have books written about him examining the content of his work.

[ivers]

No, but it ought to be about something. Those images mostly looked like technique exercises.

On the other hand, we can project a bunch of stuff on them, because they are sorta 'blank' insofar as 'content' goes, thus they allow our imagination to work freely :D (only half joking there).

More seriously, it's all good, I enjoy everything that has been shown in this thread, the artistic talent among TGP posters is admirable..and the discussion is interesting.:beer

[smiert spionam]

Indeed we can -- maybe he's the Jeff Koons of pencil sketches, and intended to provoke an extended discussion of creativity and authorship.

;- )

[DC1]

This reeks of opinion and ideology as much (actually, moreso) than Darkburst's posts. The difference is Darkbust's opinions have more weight. Yep, it's true.

I still really like the drawings in the OP. But I prefer to look at Darkbursts stuff.

You can enjoy things for what they are.

Well, everyone gets an opinion huh?

And that really is at the heart of the issue. Anyone pretending that they determine what is, and is not, art, is doomed to fail on every level since they either rely on their own opinion, or appeal to authority, and there is no consensus to be found in art authorities. (I taught audio at a university for years and know many art teachers; there is no consensus, just more opinions) So, we either all accept DB's list of authorities (himself and some teachers apparently) or we decide for ourselves. And if we accept his "authority", what happens when another "authority" calls DB's art "not art" and "we do hack work like that in beginning art classes"? Well, we do what we should have done in the first place and decide for ourselves.

For me, it's all art. Even hackneyed corpse-appearing caricatures are art. It is our job to decide if it is good art or bad art. It is not my job, nor anyone else's to decide what art is not art. This is the fundamental issue, and it should be self-evident, but sadly is not to a lot of people.

At bare minimum, someone claiming to tell others what is, and is not, art, should have the stature of a major, major artist on the level of one of the masters. And even they were full of crap on regular occasions...


:drink


dc

[fetishfrog]

That shows skill, not creativity. Mozart was the genius not the performers. I know many of you aren't going to agree with me. But most of you aren't artists, so you don't understand the difference.

It takes an incredible amount of creativity to bring to life the written note on the page.

[airwarrior]

Those have all the artistic merit of any other pretty picture of kitty cats.


Amazing technique, but I'd like to seem him draw something worth looking at.

[mrkenny]

Great thread. I visited Kruger's site, wow, very cool stuff. I'm a Blues guy, I really liked the Muddy portrait.

[scott]

Originally Posted by DC1 http://img.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=7894903#post7894903)
No, you must have talent in order to learn skills. Desire is not enough. I have taught for many years and I can tell you that that there is no teaching skills where there is no talent. It is a talent you do not value, so you pretend it is not there. Good luck with that.

You, of course, prefer your opaque and flat cartoon illustrations, and hope that, because they are unique, (not original mind you) but unique, that this creativity will be considered more valuable to others than what is clearly much more sophisticated art than your own. This is nothing but marketing and is pretty transparent here.

After all, you clearly do not want to be held to the very high standard of the work under discussion, so you call it "not art".

Absurd and laughable.

It is clearly art and represents a very strong talent.

Is it great art? Well, I prefer Kandinsky, but that owl rocks.

dc


I like the drawings too . Its art to this uneducated artist(or artisan if you prefer.) Im a little redneck a little artist, probably the worst combo as far as social skills go.
However, DC1 you have a real talent for sounding like you think your above everyone else. Most of your post REEK of "Im moraly better than you"
You clearly dont see the irony that your statement "absurd and laughable" can be used to describe your post as well. Sorry man your opinion loses value when you come accross like that. Good luck with that.

[TubeStack]

Yeah, I have an uncle who's a pretty accomplished visual artist and he has no time, and not much appreciation, for this sort of work. Feels there's no art to it, just remarkable recreation.

On a different note, does the illustrator of these pics have any autistic/aspergers characteristics? His abilities seem savant-like, pretty intense.

[DC1]

I like the drawings too . Its art to this uneducated artist(or artisan if you prefer.) Im a little redneck a little artist, probably the worst combo as far as social skills go.
However, DC1 you have a real talent for sounding like you think your above everyone else. Most of your post REEK of "Im moraly better than you"
You clearly dont see the irony that your statement "absurd and laughable" can be used to describe your post as well. Sorry man your opinion loses value when you come accross like that. Good luck with that.

Just trying to make a coherent point. Sorry it came across that way.


dc

[shibby]

After checking the link to this guy's stuff on Deviant Art I take back what I said about this guy. I was wrong. There's a lot of work on there that's clearly based on his own photos that actually tell some stories and his perspective on life. Especially his family portraits. The initial link in this post doesn't really represent this guy's work. It's like they chose the most impressive renderings with the least amount soul. I shouldn't have judged his work based on that initial link. I can admit when I'm wrong. I suggest people check out this link:

http://paullung.deviantart.com/gallery/

As my own punishment I will render a photorealistic drawing of my dog. In fact I'll create a thread to show the whole process once I start.

Darkburst, good of you man up and give credit where credit is due. You were too quick to judge an artist based on a few sample pieces of his work. Pretty shortsighted of you IMO.

However, I still think you should take a step back still and give a bit more thought on what you think is valid as art. In a comment on page 6 you implied that Warhols tomato can soup piece was valid as art because its "a graphic representation of a Campell's Soup can and not a photo realistic rendering."

So what are you implying there? That the tomato soup piece is art because it resembles a tomato soup can but not quite exactly like one. And because the rhino or lion drawing by Paul Lung looks too much like the real thing, therefore it's not art? That don't make sense man.

[shibby]

In addition Darkburst, since you claim to be an artist yourself, I'm actually surprised that you don't see the vision and creative talents and technique it takes to create such a realistic piece. You're telling me that any of those pencil techniques hes uses to create the effect he wants utilizes any form of creativity on his part? lame

[BobbyFudge]

Any one else notice the studio lighting?....these are like headshots for wild animals....or to show off a taxidermists handiwork.

And I don't say that as a negative critique....they do have a certain kistch appeal to me for those reasons.

Also yes his technique is very good but not uncommon.....As was stated before and in my experience,when I was at Art Center getting my BFA in illustration there were plenty of students just as facile with graphite.Essentially these are value,tone,lighting and texture studies. Also as a teacher I've had students who have displayed some of the same talent.

[Scott Miller]

It is not my job, nor anyone else's to decide what art is not art.

Yep, that is true. The whole story of modernism is basically stripping away everything extraneous to get to what art is. "Extraneous" qualities are such things as meaning, emotion, color, form, and any whiff of aesthetic experience. Ironically, the end result of this reductivist movement is that now you can take any object, idea, action, noise, whatever, and call it art. Even nice drawings of kittens.

As for quality, that's another topic, but that too is basically up for grabs.

[DC1]

Yep, that is true. The whole story of modernism is basically stripping away everything extraneous to get to what art is. "Extraneous" qualities are such things as meaning, emotion, color, form, and any whiff of aesthetic experience. Ironically, the end result of this reductivist movement is that now you can take any object, idea, action, noise, whatever, and call it art. Even nice drawings of kittens.

As for quality, that's another topic, but that too is basically up for grabs.

No, that is not modernism at all. This antique movement known as modernism was about a new visual vocabulary and it resulted in some terrific art, and some garbage like any other movement. It was not, in essence, reductionistic, but was about new ways of seeing, or asking "what am I seeing?". And sometimes it was simply about joy or beauty. It all depends on the artist like anything else.

What is really reductionistic is reducing this:

http://www.beautifullife.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/23/02.jpg

To "nice kitty drawings".

We seem to live in some black/white world where this has to either be startlingly-great art of supreme stature or "not art" worthy of a sneer.

Well, both extremes are rubbish. It's art, not medicine, dentistry or finance, and whether it is good art is up to you. It probably is not not great art considering that it looks like a photo, but even that is up for discussion as we have seen. It is certainly bitchin' drawing representing skill and talent.

Do I want it on my wall? No. But I sure not going to sneer at it.

There was and is plenty of quality in the modern era from Hopper to Moretti to Kandinsky to Miro to Picasso to Rothko and many more. Plenty of esthetic, plenty of emotion; really most anything you could look for.

I love both Pollack and Van Gogh, Rothko and Matisse. Why not? Who says I can't?


:love:



dc

[Darkburst]

Darkburst, good of you man up and give credit where credit is due. You were too quick to judge an artist based on a few sample pieces of his work. Pretty shortsighted of you IMO.

However, I still think you should take a step back still and give a bit more thought on what you think is valid as art. In a comment on page 6 you implied that Warhols tomato can soup piece was valid as art because its "a graphic representation of a Campell's Soup can and not a photo realistic rendering."

So what are you implying there? That the tomato soup piece is art because it resembles a tomato soup can but not quite exactly like one. And because the rhino or lion drawing by Paul Lung looks too much like the real thing, therefore it's not art? That don't make sense man.

Yes I agree that I was too quick to judge, but based on that initial link I was not impressed at all. I guess most people are easily dazzled by visual art that looks like it took a lot of time and work to make. I don't know how many times I've heard idiots at the museum look at a Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock painting and say "I could've painted this". Art isn't in the technique.

I'm not against photorealism at all. It can be a powerful tool used to make art. But slavishly copying someone else's rhino or lion photograph isn't art to me. It's not expressing anything. It's like saying that going to the gym is a sport. Creativity is about bringing out something new or novel. Realistic rendering isn't new, it's been done countless times before.

No I don't think realistic rendering for it's own sake is creative. It's skilled mimicry at best. Maybe a good exercise but meaningless without some sort of context. That's why I find Paul's portraits of his family and friends more compelling. He's actually sharing part of his world with the viewer. It's not like the animal drawings where I could probably find those exact images if I spent enough time on Google Images.

Anyway, I don't expect you to agree with me... but this is my opinion.

[Kaji13]

If so it's some of the best work that i've seen.

http://www.beautifullife.info/art-works/unbelievable-pencil-art/
Definately hand drawn, you can tell because he puts a lot of focus on making the face of the animal look picture-esque, where as the edges of the animal usually become fuzzy. Absolutely amazing though, especially that last drawing, it looks like a black and white photograph.

As to whether or not this guy is a genius, I say no, not a genius..VERY, VERY, VERY talented though, and I think if he has this skill, he would have a great ability to create pictures of worlds we have never seen before if he combined his drawing skill with a Dali-esque imagination. If he created something entirely new, then he would be a true artistic genius.

[Dave Shoop]

I love it when people are so invested in themselves and their own opinions. It's like a good comedy but then again what is comedy? Well I've studied comedy for 37 years and comedy is blah, blah, blah.
There's a scene in "Manhattan" where Woody and his friends are leaving a museum. He's listening to Diane Keaton's critique of art etc. Well we just saw that scene here. This is life imitating comedy so what does that make this? :rotflmao:rotflmao

[Kaji13]

Life?

[Dave Shoop]

have to get a consensus on that

[subanots]

so, I was looking at my websites hit history. I noticed that I got a few hits from people that linked from this forum. I found this thread and read it.

First of all, the guy who drew the cat pictures is awesome. He has loads of skill and no amount of pretentious dribble will change that fact.

Second, the main guy who was slagging his work (Darkburs t) was doing so in a manner that would cause you to believe that he is an amazing artist. Or just really confident in his work. He called them "nice kitty drawings". I found his website and looked at his body of work. Its all cartoony stuff. Show me your ability to do realism, then you can talk. He also mentioned something about studying and reproducing photos is "first year stuff" or some crap like that. Well, I got news for ya, cartoon doodles are grade school. I dont care that you have your "art" on skateboards. Yay for you.

People who trash artists that work from photos all have one thing in common: They cant do it, so they try to make it less impressive than it really is. They usually have an argument about the time spent. Who cares how long it took? Who cares if they used a photo?

Not the greatest first post. Sorry for the rant.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee131/stonabus/Hepburn1.jpg

[bigdaddy]

Welcome to TGP. The "you can't do it so it must be really good art" argument has pretty much been debunked here somewhere around a thousand times.

[Jahn]

he's not smiling while he draws. so obviously he's technically brilliant but has no soul.

[subanots]

Welcome to TGP. The "you can't do it so it must be really good art" argument has pretty much been debunked here somewhere around a thousand times.
thanks for the welcome. I wasnt saying "you can't do it so it must be really good art" ... More so "if you say its easily done with no skill, or beginner skills, you better be able to do better than the example shown, since you are so superior" and I was a little miffed because he does cartoon work, no realism at all. ITS NOT EASY.

[Nurk2]

Art is subjective, yet as with things that are subjective, it can be critique thru certain benchmarks. One can argue what those benchmarks might be but, they are there. Art in simplest terms can be broken down into 2 parts: Form and Content.
Form is the physical aspect, what it looks like, how is it executed
Content is what the piece of art is trying to convey to the viewer

Well, everyone gets an opinion huh?

And that really is at the heart of the issue. Anyone pretending that they determine what is, and is not, art, is doomed to fail on every level since they either rely on their own opinion, or appeal to authority, and there is no consensus to be found in art authorities.
dc

I've spent a lot of time thinking about "art" - what it is, who makes it, who decides - starting back in the 80's with a degree in philosophy. Additionally, I've been kicking around guitar discussion boards for the better part of a decade, embroiled in all sorts of discussions about what qualifies as "good music."

I read the preceding pages of this thread with great interest. I think the entire spectrum of aesthetic judgment has been represented, from "I don't know what art is, but I know what I like," to "a refined sensitivity to artistic expression betrays matters of taste.

I certainly have no definitive statement to make about whether these drawings are "art" or what art is, but over the years I've collected some reflections (sort of like Nietzsche's aphorisms) on the debate that have informed my understanding - as incomplete as it is.

Notice that each of these rings true, yet they contradict one another.


"We naturalize our ideologies aesthetic preferences, and then exercise the judgement of taste as a judgement of social value. There is no absolute scale of [artistic] value."

People have a self-centered view of art. If they like something, they no longer consider a 'preference.' It becomes true or false."

"Art is about the transference of energy. The goal is to never let the energy die, drop, or disappear."

"What makes art? Context and intention" ~Marina Abramovic

"The choice of medium is irrelevant."

"As a musician, I'm a lot closer to a paramedic, a firefighter, a rescue worker. We're here to be a sort of therapist for the human soul, a spiritual version of a chiropractor, physical therapist, someone who works with our insides to see if they get things to line up; to see if we can come into harmony with ourselves and be happy healthy and well."

"If you really believe there is no good or bad - that wisdom, skill, talent, and judgement make no difference - the next time you need a surgery, hire me. I'm as good a surgeon as anybody, and I'll give you a deal on it."

"Art is a one way deal. The person makes it and you have to deal with it, or not." ~Danny Barnes

"A genius is the one most like himself." ~T. Monk