These First 4 Photos Were Just Kinda Neat. Then I Saw the 5th One… It Put My Jaw On The Floor

reply to post by CagliostroTheGreat


Don't forget he comes MUCH MUCH later than the Masters. He profits from their inventions.

If you look at picture number five, their are traces of squares he drew first before reproducing a PHOTO he took of himself, covered in paint.

When was the last time a Master you named worked with a picture?

Oh, and the Masters also invented the way to draw perspective, and the squares he used... lol What did he invent?

I admit he is really talented though.

Wow!

reply to post by NowanKenubi


Indeed.

I would be surprised if the masters could even touch this guy even given modern techniques and technology. Obviously I could be wrong and I'm not trying to demean the abilities of those that came before just saying this guys is good. Real good. Among others as well.

But style is another thing altogether. These types of photo-realistic paintings just can't convey the feelings that more abstract works provide. I could look at Eloys work and never realize (as I had) that it is paint on canvas and not a photo. Now, take Monet for instance, you get something from that. Or even someone as modern as H.R. Geiger. These works produce emotion that the clinical photo-realusm could never match.

Kallisti

The first image gave it away as a set of paintings, but nonetheless extraordinary work & overall high level of realism.


cghub.com...

reply to post by fluff007


WOW those are amazing! What talent he has!!

I had a friend a few years ago whose boyfriend was an AMAZING artist. He would do pencil art that looked like photo prints. I remember going to her apt and asking who took all the photos, they had them hanging all over the place. She smiled and said it was all pencil art. I was in AWE. They were amazing!! I wish I still had the picture i took with my phone of one of the walls.

Some people have a real talent with art. My Nana was an artist while she was alive and she could paint! It runs in my family, the artistic gene I use to paint but it is an expensive hobby so I haven't done it in a very long time. I wish I could afford it because I"d take it up again. It is very relaxing.

reply to post by fluff007

The guy is pretty good. But if that is art then my high resolution camera is a better artist.

Just a messing. Dude got skills, cool stuff.

Holy Smokes! This is stunning...do I believe it or not?

Damn you internet! And artistic genius!

reply to post by fluff007


That is so far the most artistic egocentrism I've seen......, times 5.

It's also a subconscious message : The paint is covering his face because he fears to show himself, his art is a shield.

Great talent.
Crappy subject matter, imo.
Hey look, it's me!
It's me again!

This was not done freehand btw, he projected the image and drew the features in.
Glad people still have this kind of skill with traditional media.
Not a fan of computer-generated anything.
Lacks the actual human touch.

Some of you may want to check out Chuck Close. IIRC at some point he had a stroke & had to paint with his brushes strapped to his hands.
www.moma.org...

On the sculptural side there is also a guy named Ron Mueck who makes some amazing work.
www.theatlantic.com...

Jeebus its photoshop folks.

darrellabbott
Jeebus its photoshop folks.

Check his stuff, he is a recognised artist... man read some comments before you post.

The technical ability to project a photograph onto a canvas and color in the spaces isn't talent. Technology and sophisticated photo emulsions has taken all the work out of photorealism. The talent lies in the photograph itself. Imo the photos can stand alone.

The squares you see in the half completed painting are from transferring the image to the canvas.
You take a photo of the subject you want to paint, print it out and draw a grid pattern over the image.
Then you draw a similar grid on your canvas. Then just draw in what you see on the photo grid on your canvas.
It's called the grid transfer method and It's been around since the middle ages.
So instead of having to do one big drawing by eye your doing 20 smaller drawings.

And If you want something to really blow your mind watch a little film called "Tim's Vermeer"


www.sonyclassics.com...

"Tim Jenison, a Texas based inventor, attempts to solve one of the greatest mysteries in all art: How did 17th century Dutch Master Johannes Vermeer ("Girl with a Pearl Earring") manage to paint so photo-realistically -- 150 years before the invention of photography? The epic research project Jenison embarks on to test his theory is as extraordinary as what he discovers.

Spanning eight years, Jenison's adventure takes him to Delft, Holland, where Vermeer painted his masterpieces, on a pilgrimage to the North coast of Yorkshire to meet artist David Hockney, and even to Buckingham Palace to see a Vermeer masterpiece in the collection of the Queen."

I;m not a fan of David Hockney by any means but it does show that people are far more inventive and talented than people give them credit for. So before you cry Photoshop or CG you need to realize people can make art perfectly fine on their own.

reply to post by mash3d


When I saw the movie Girl with a Pearl Earring, I was surprised to see Vermeer using a camera obscura, which I didn't know existed prior to me seeing the movie.

The camera, as the name implies, is like a modern camera, but without a film or disk to register the images. I understood he did it on canvas and by hand.
I was amazed by what I was seeing. Sometimes what passes for modern technology is sooo old... lol

Excellent thread!

I only recently discovered hyper realism art through my tattoo artist, who is also a Morales. Still can't get my head around how it's possible.

The extent of human talent is astounding at times!

reply to post by fluff007


NO WAY!!!!! not real, it cant be, no one is that good. i wish i could zoom in more to see if there are any brush strokes you can see but i cant.

reply to post by fluff007


WOW! The art pieces themselves are not my cup of tea, but that is absolutely incredible! I scrolled through the first 4 pics as well, thinking "um, OK.." but yeah, that 5th one floored me. it took me a few seconds the compute what I was actually seeing.

Holy Crap.. damn those are realistic.

This frightens me to death. I had no idea you could get that detailed with oil paints - and I paint!

What scares me is the potential fpr this to be abused. If someone like the government can hire a photo realistic painter they can digitize the scene on computers and make you look like and do anything they want - and no one would be able to tell.

I say if you can do this, you need to have your name listed in a national database so The People can keep an eye on you folks.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Oddly enough you don't have to do hyper realism to get people to believe something is real.
The less detail you give people the more their brain will fill in the gaps.
Movie Matte Painters have been using that trick for years.
You just have to give people what they expect to see, then they make up the rest.

This gets screwed up with computer graphics because CGI artists often don't put in enough information or they put in the
wrong info or a repeating a pattern. People can quickly spot when something isn't quite right.
That's why CGI has such a hard time doing a moving human face.