This is not a photograph

Anorakus

Anorakus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
836
Edit My Images
Yes
article-1214336-06783843000005DC-360_634x474.jpg


It's a painting :eek:

Full article here

A.
 
Seriously clever.
More clever than anything I could ever do.

BUT :D

What's the point?
Would have taken me a few seconds to do that shot, where it probably took the artist weeks, or months or perhaps years to paint........
 
Fantastic:thumbs::eek:
A true artist with a lot of talent.
 
Fantastic. Is it for sale? Is the artiste taking commissions?
 
Sorry... :thinking: ... would not even make a good photograph imhgo... :shrug:


Yes it probably took a lot of expertise and effort and time and skill and attention to detail and whatever but so what...


But what do I know... except what I like... :naughty:





:p
 
I've seen something like this before, if its the same artist his website has some great pencil drawings on it.

Its a bit too real for me for painting, makes me think "but what is the point, a camera could do that"

Although I can certainly appreciate the time, effort and skill that goes in to it.
 
andy_fozzy said:
What's the point?
Would have taken me a few seconds to do that shot, where it probably took the artist weeks, or months or perhaps years to paint........
Click to expand...

it's almost if art is greater than the sum of its parts!
 
I'm amazed at the "So What" attitude to this, I've seen a lot of crap photos on here that have got better reviews, come on guys, give credit where it is due! This work is superb and anyone who can create images like that has talent!
 
Venomator said:
Sorry... :thinking: ... would not even make a good photograph imhgo... :shrug:


Yes it probably took a lot of expertise and effort and time and skill and attention to detail and whatever but so what...


But what do I know... except what I like... :naughty:





:p
Click to expand...

D'oh!

it's art you Sssssslippery Ssssssnake Sssssskinned posssster

it's going to be worth meeelions of £s when the artist dies :bonk:

possibly

probably

maybe


:bonk::bonk::bonk:

an actumal humian drewed dat with like dair vingers and eferythink:suspect:
 
I saw an oil painting in a Paris art gallery, done by some old codger from the 1800s era. It was a still life - the usual bowl of fruit. I'm not normally moved by this sort of stuff, nor even interested - I was dragged in there by a friend.

I stood for ages staring at this painting. It had a photographic quality about it, almost 3-dimensional and luminescent, with incredible detail. I never did take note of whose it was, much to my regret.
 
Speaking as an artist/cartoonist myself, I say that's an amazing effort! True, it may be quicker just to take a photo but photography and artwork are two different concepts even though the end result is the same . . . and besides painting has been around for far, far longer than photography. A bit like books to the internet.
 
She is obviously very talented and these are incredible. I understand entirely why people appreciate her work.

However, 10/10 for copying, 0/10 for creativity.

If the photo has already been taken, I just don't see the point in wasting hours away copying it.
 
Amazing painting, superb detail, great talent, I think that it would be quite difficult even to do this as a photograph, i've tried taking pics throuch wet glass, usually didnt work.


Dave
 
They are very good. Beats my stick men I can draw!
 
BOM said:
I'm amazed at the "So What" attitude to this, I've seen a lot of crap photos on here that have got better reviews, come on guys, give credit where it is due! This work is superb and anyone who can create images like that has talent!
Click to expand...

Err this is a photographic forum. Yes it's very good, but so are a lot of the painings in the National gallery, so what.
As somebody else said why go to all the time and trouble to paint it when you could have shot it in a few minutes, if I was an art director which is going to be the cheaper option, 6 months for the artist, or half a day for the tog??
 
swanseamale47 said:
Err this is a photographic forum. Yes it's very good, but so are a lot of the painings in the National gallery, so what.
As somebody else said why go to all the time and trouble to paint it when you could have shot it in a few minutes, if I was an art director which is going to be the cheaper option, 6 months for the artist, or half a day for the tog??
Click to expand...

Yes and no...painting and photography are merely different imaging mediums if you look at it in that way...
Many old masters used camera-obscura to make their paintings as David Hockney finally proved a few years ago...
This 'photo-realist' style isn't new - Brendan Neiland was doing it years ago...

If you want to learn about lighting and composition, go to the National Portrait Gallery and examine those old portraits...the same principles still apply...
 
Its quite an awesome painting, very realistic. Not sure I see the point to it really- if the subject has already had their photo taken...
 
Arkady said:
Yes and no...painting and photography are merely different imaging mediums if you look at it in that way...
Many old masters used camera-obscura to make their paintings as David Hockney finally proved a few years ago...
This 'photo-realist' style isn't new - Brendan Neiland was doing it years ago...

If you want to learn about lighting and composition, go to the National Portrait Gallery and examine those old portraits...the same principles still apply...
Click to expand...

No, photography = painting with light not painting with paint, thats called..... painting.
 
If it was a photograph, people wouldn't be so impressed.
But because it's a painting it seems impressive.

I guess what I'm trying to say (or rather maybe ask) is how much emphasis do you put on the history behind a piece of work?

Would a 'crappy' picture of some snow taken on Everest by an alpinist who topped Everest without oxygen be more impressive than a good and clear shot taken by someone at home who just walked out the front door for a second?

Or maybe it's not the photograph/art itself that you admire, but the creativity and skill (or grueling work) of the artist? (see "taking a dip" in the article)
 
andy_fozzy said:
Seriously clever.
More clever than anything I could ever do.

BUT :D

What's the point?
Would have taken me a few seconds to do that shot, where it probably took the artist weeks, or months or perhaps years to paint........
Click to expand...

Is that not the point, the skill etc that went into, good things come to those who wait etc, and for people to appreciate the skill that went into it.

It may not be for all, but at least people are discussing it, always a good sign!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top