Random Picture Thread

[wuapinmon]

Come on. You can do better than that.

I am guessing that he uses a photo as a guide when he does his sketches. So he is going to be no better/different than his photos. It is just a human photocopy process.

Artistic intent imbues the artwork with new meaning. If you paint a canvas red, that's not art. If I paint a canvas red, and call it "Red Square" I imbue it with secondary meaning, so it's definitely art. Calling something like that "just" a human photocopy process is to ignore the camera obscura of the Renaissance and how they were able to achieve such amazing facsimiles in their paintings. It also ignores the craft and talent in motor skills that it takes to copy something already. What's more, it's little different that someone sitting for a portrait, or an arranged still life, which are essentially photocopies, as you worded it, of real life.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Scott Jacobs does a similar thing. He is now making ridiculous money. When he first started I heard many people saying the same thing you are saying.

I'm not sure Scott cares anymore. He loves what he is doing, he's getting filthy rich doing it, and for every critic he has, there is an admiring fan.

http://scottjacobsstudio.com/gallery/

For the record, I think the pencil drawing posted above is amazing.

That is an entirely different style.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Artistic intent imbues the artwork with new meaning. If you paint a canvas red, that's not art. If I paint a canvas red, and call it "Red Square" I imbue it with secondary meaning, so it's definitely art. Calling something like that "just" a human photocopy process is to ignore the camera obscura of the Renaissance and how they were able to achieve such amazing facsimiles in their paintings. It also ignores the craft and talent in motor skills that it takes to copy something already. What's more, it's little different that someone sitting for a portrait, or an arranged still life, which are essentially photocopies, as you worded it, of real life.

No, I most certainly did not ignore the craft and talent. I am talking about the end product. If you take a close-up of a photo like the work in question and reproduce it exactly, what do you have? A photocopy-style reproduction that takes incredible talent, but is essentially identical to the original. A cool trick, no doubt. But not terribly inspiring (to me, anyway).

Let me give you another example. I know a guy who took one of the Arnold Frieberg (sp?) paintings in the BOM and did an exact reproduction using oil paints. Took him a long time to complete it. When he was done, he treated it as his masterpiece, but he got a lukewarm reaction. Sure, it was an impressive technical achievement, but it was essentially a photocopy.

[Devildog]

That is an entirely different style.

I said he does a similar thing.

They both start with a photo and use it as a guide. Scott uses a paint by numbers approach rather than a pencil drawing to reproduce the photo.

[wuapinmon]

No, I most certainly did not ignore the craft and talent. I am talking about the end product. If you take a close-up of a photo like the work in question and reproduce it exactly, what do you have? A photocopy-style reproduction that takes incredible talent, but is essentially identical to the original. A cool trick, no doubt. But not terribly inspiring (to me, anyway).

Let me give you another example. I know a guy who took one of the Arnold Frieberg (sp?) paintings in the BOM and did an exact reproduction using oil paints. Took him a long time to complete it. When he was done, he treated it as his masterpiece, but he got a lukewarm reaction. Sure, it was an impressive technical achievement, but it was essentially a photocopy.

I'm not in the best frame of mind right now. Let me come back to this question in a few days.

[LA Ute]

No, I most certainly did not ignore the craft and talent. I am talking about the end product. If you take a close-up of a photo like the work in question and reproduce it exactly, what do you have? A photocopy-style reproduction that takes incredible talent, but is essentially identical to the original. A cool trick, no doubt. But not terribly inspiring (to me, anyway).

Let me give you another example. I know a guy who took one of the Arnold Frieberg (sp?) paintings in the BOM and did an exact reproduction using oil paints. Took him a long time to complete it. When he was done, he treated it as his masterpiece, but he got a lukewarm reaction. Sure, it was an impressive technical achievement, but it was essentially a photocopy.

I am not a big fan of artistic realism, so I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. But still:



Ad this one's for wuap:

[Northwestcoug]

Oh, well. It turns out that the photo was taken in September, according to ABC News. So it's not exactly a fake.

Yeah, fake is maybe too harsh a word in this case.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I said he does a similar thing.

They both start with a photo and use it as a guide. Scott uses a paint by numbers approach rather than a pencil drawing to reproduce the photo.

Using a photo is not the point. Lots of artists do that. Sometimes they use multiple photos to combine different elements. But typically they end up with something that is different than the photo in terms of light, color, composition, etc. I.e., an original creation. That is certainly the case with the examples you provided. They are photorealistic, but nobody would mistake them for a photo.

Let me put this another way: Suppose the artist in question decided to sell reprints of his sketch. Further, suppose someone at the studio decided to save a little time and money by just cranking out reprints of the original photo. May as well because nobody would be able to tell the difference.

[wuapinmon]

Using a photo is not the point. Lots of artists do that. Sometimes they use multiple photos to combine different elements. But typically they end up with something that is different than the photo in terms of light, color, composition, etc. I.e., an original creation. That is certainly the case with the examples you provided. They are photorealistic, but nobody would mistake them for a photo.

Let me put this another way: Suppose the artist in question decided to sell reprints of his sketch. Further, suppose someone at the studio decided to save a little time and money by just cranking out reprints of the original photo. May as well because nobody would be able to tell the difference.

Now you're talking about the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.

Before I answer, what do you think of this work? Is it art?

[YOUTUBE]x3IMP0fwlCM[/YOUTUBE]

I also would like for you to read this story, to understand where I am coming from:

http://vahidnab.com/menard.pdf

[Jeff Lebowski]

Now you're talking about the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.

Before I answer, what do you think of this work? Is it art?

Sure. But what's your point? I never claimed that the sketch in question isn't a form of art. Please, let's not get into one of those "definition of art" debates. I can't stand those.

I am just saying while I find it impressive from a technical viewpoint, I don't find it particularly inspiring from an artistic viewpoint.

I also would like for you to read this story, to understand where I am coming from:

http://vahidnab.com/menard.pdf

Sorry, professor. No time today for homework. Cliff Notes, please.

[wuapinmon]

Sure. But what's your point? I never claimed that the sketch in question isn't a form of art. Please, let's not get into one of those "definition of art" debates. I can't stand those.

I am just saying while I find it impressive from a technical viewpoint, I don't find it particularly inspiring from an artistic viewpoint.



Sorry, professor. No time today for homework. Cliff Notes, please.

I don't think there's much of a discussion then. Inspiration comes from without to stimulate personal response. I think that if you saw these in a gallery, not knowing that they were drawn from a photograph, but were just told that they are drawings, the effect on you would be much different than your current one. But, that's supposition, and ultimately, unknowable.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think there's much of a discussion then. Inspiration comes from without to stimulate personal response. I think that if you saw these in a gallery, not knowing that they were drawn from a photograph, but were just told that they are drawings, the effect on you would be much different than your current one. But, that's supposition, and ultimately, unknowable.

If I saw that in a gallery, I would think "That's a nice photograph."

[wuapinmon]

If I saw that in a gallery, I would think "That's a nice photograph."

But, if you read the placard, and realized that it wasn't a photograph, how might you react?

[Jeff Lebowski]

But, if you read the placard, and realized that it wasn't a photograph, how might you react?

Same way I have here. Glorified photocopy.

[wuapinmon]

Same way I have here. Glorified photocopy.

But, that's the thing I'm contending...you know it's from a photograph. If you didn't know, I believe that your reaction might be different. I think mine would be, at least.