PDA

View Full Version : Painting or Photo?



marconius
07-11-2014, 07:18 AM
Ok so lets throw this ball up in the air and see where it lands,so to speak.Not sure if this subject has been covered or not but here goes.I possibly like many other Artrage users have gone onto YouTube with the intention of looking for tips and tricks on how to do a certain thing and on more than one occasion, ended up watching a speed painting of someone producing an image of a photograph,that unless i had seen it with my own eyes,would have believed was a photograph.Side by side they are almost identical.Now may i just say at this point ,there is no jealousy here,these guy's and gals for that matter are truly gifted artists, most probably art graduates and their work is truly amazing.My point is where is the style?Unless we can categorize photo replica as a style.point being you could line ten different paintings by ten different artists,and only no the difference by the signatures.It is a credit to Ambient that they have produced a piece of software that is capable of achieving such wonders,and a credit to these artists who are able to use the software to mimic a high resolution camera.The old masters" Constable","Rembrandt","Van-Cough"produced amazing works from sketch books and memory,each with their unmistakable style.I am not a trained artist far from it,i purchased Artrage,as at the time i needed another hobby,art was something i always enjoyed when younger,and having a digital way of producing my art appealed.For one thing,its easy to correct your mistakes,and i have saved myself a fortune on art products resulting from all the rubbish,i would have produced.Yet the problem i face undoubtedly like many fellow would be artists, which way should i go,try for the seemingly unattainable, yet attainable level of excellence of producing a painting that looks like a photograph,or adopt a more traditional approach.Ho hum!

AndreaMG
07-11-2014, 08:01 AM
I see your point and I like painterly paintings too nonetheless some iper-realistic works do intrigue me because it never ceases to amaze me what can be achieved by human being, the "wow factor" sometimes it's worth it. My2cents ;) Cheers

marconius
07-11-2014, 08:37 AM
May i just say,having just viewed your gallery that your work is both stunning and totally original,in my view you have developed a style that is totally recognizable and unique to yourself a wondrous use of brushwork and almost collage inception,brilliant.

hildee
07-11-2014, 03:40 PM
When I see photo-realistic stuff I have 2 reactions - 1. wow how did they do that! 2. why not just have the photo...all that hard work! So a mix of incredulity and why bother, kind of thing :) But mostly I just gape!

copespeak
07-11-2014, 06:04 PM
I really love to see good brush strokes; to show where the artist has been, and the skill it has taken to put that stroke down well.

D Akey
07-11-2014, 06:53 PM
I've seen all kinds and there's merit in all of them. . . You know what they say, 'Different strokes' (or lack thereof). . .

I really like wild paintings that work, mostly because of the painting skill -- like someone walking a tightrope. It's sorta thrilling. There's not much thrill for me in a really tight painting. It produces a feeling of safety and secure mastery over the material, but it's got far less to do with the artist than it's about the subject, similar to what photographers do.

I will say one thing about photographic looks in art, that when they are about something never seen or imagined before, but are realized to where it combines a fully formed fantasy that I can simply walk into, I am most appreciative and admire their work for their knowledge and skill of how to make something materialize as if there had been a model, eg an angel set up and posing in a grove of trees surrounded by a ring of dancing faeries and a grazing unicorn or whatever. They are serving the imagination in a very strong way by making it photographic.

On the other hand, things that are less modern, and old world, like natives in the Southwest, where it matches what the flavor is, rough painting is very appropriate as a choice.

Swashy painting suggests passion and abandon that is defying convention somewhat. And there's certainly better fits in some places for that than others. Same with music and dance.

If I'm selling something, depending on my angle, what I'm selling, I may want something conservative or I may opt for something expressive and personal. And every work of art is selling something, even if it's a mood. And we can mix and match to fit the reason for which we paint.

Henry Stahle
07-16-2014, 08:14 PM
There are artists painting or drawing from photos to make the painting or drawing looking just like the photo. And I always asked the same: what is the point?

There are artists painting or drawing to make a photo look like handmade art, like an oil painting or an ink drawing. There are even several software that automates the process by adding textures and patterns of different kinds to mimic the look of "real art". I always asked myself: what is the point?

I preferre photography as it is, painting as it is, drawing as it is... handmade or digital.

jmac
07-17-2014, 02:02 AM
I've read the posts in this thread with interest because I am a realist painter. Or at least I once was. It was never my intention to make a painting that looked like a photograph. It never even occurred to me. My intention from the start was to make it look real. Not as real as possible but real enough to satisfy my eye. I enjoy detail. The detail in textures close up or landscapes far away. I enjoyed the challenge of trying to capture that detail in paint on a canvas. People would see my work and say with enthusiasm "Oh it looks just like a photograph!" They are sincere and mean it as a compliment and I smile and respond with a polite "Thank you." But what I want to say is "No it doesn't. It looks realistic. Not photographic." There are varying degrees of everything and there are painters whose work even from just a few feet away looks photographic because that is their intention. Whether it is the challenge that motivates them or the desire to fool the viewer, they start out to make a painting that replicates the nuances inherent in photography. I used photography as a reference because I couldn't get most of the things I wanted to paint into my studio. I used paint as way to express my connection to things in the world I that moved me. I would like to believe that my paintings were in some way better than the photograph they referenced. Not because I have some great skill, but better visually, in terms of color, depth, and selective editing for compositional reasons.

With that said, I agree with Copespeak who "enjoys good brush strokes" and more and more I found myself asking, like Henry Stahl, "What is the point?" If people see my painting and are reminded of photography instead of the connection to the landscape or other subject I am trying to convey, then isn't that painting a failed effort? If the effort overwhelms the message then what gets communicated worth the effort? I don't want to hear another "Oh it looks just like a photograph." I want to hear "It looks as though you could walk right in there." "I want to reach out and touch the canvas." Maybe that's part of why I don't paint anymore. I can't seem to figure out what the point is anymore.

I enjoy impressionist work very much. I marvel at how well some artists can convey so much with a few strokes. I think my favorite kinds of paintings are somewhere in between. A voice in the back of my head says "you should try that". Maybe one day I will. That is really the whole reason I got Art Rage. But while Art Rage is an amazing program I miss the way a brush feels against the give of a canvas. Almost like you are working on something alive.

So in the end I think Mr Akey is correct and there is room for all kinds of work and all kinds of opinions and I believe artists paint in the style most reflective of who they are. Realist, photorealist, impressionist, expressionist, or abstract, I guess it is up to each to figure out what the point is.

marconius
07-18-2014, 11:23 PM
I really love to see good brush strokes; to show where the artist has been, and the skill it has taken to put that stroke down well.
May i just take this opportunity yo say that everyone who has commented on this thread has made fair and valid points on the subject and i think the overall conjecture is "each to his own "May i also just reiterate that which i said in my original post as to the skill and dedication of the artists that produce these photo realistic works.But that said i have to agree with you Robyn as to seeing the brushwork,the lines the way the artist has worked the paint ,used there skill and imagination in order to form the illusion that is presented before us.Sometimes struggled with it,battled with it even,but found a way to make it work,that happy accident,on occasion i have had complete paintings especially working with real water colour that have been composed of almost everything being one big happy accident.And a special thanks Robyn for all the wonderful tutorials that you have posted especially the stuff concerning watercolor,probably my favorite media,but it would seem just as difficult,if not harder to master in digital form as it is in real terms.I find it very difficult at times to think outside the box,and with Artrage is is very helpful if you are able to do that.Please anyone who is interested in watercolor take a moment to check out a guy called steven Cronin on youtube if you havn't already done so .He is a Birminghan UK artist who produces some marvelous watervolour paintings "If there's any goodness in anything? Its in a lot of it!" JIM ELKINS

Someonesane
07-19-2014, 02:24 AM
I believe the point of some realistic painting is in depicting the unattainable. The style is not about enjoying the art for "the art" (the splashes of color or streaks of the brush), but for loosing ones imagination in the scene depicted. Does one read a book to look at the printed letters? I'm going assume it's not often. No, one reads a book for the story it tells and when it's written well, it can be understood effortlessly. We can't go outside right now and take a picture of a person battling a living dragon, but a person who can paint a photo realistic painting can create an image of it that's so real you may believe you could walk right into it. And therein lies the appeal. At least for some.

Bacchante 2 (http://realismoenlapintura.com/2012/11/03/nueva-obra-marina-dieul/) - By: Marina Dieul (https://www.google.com/search?q=Marina+Dieul&client=firefox-a&hs=H2p&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zCvJU5WBK8aQyAS7uILYDA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=789)

Imaginative Realism (https://www.google.com/search?q=imaginative+realism&client=firefox-a&hs=7Pp&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jyLJU4GtL4qxyATtnYHICQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=789#channel=sb&q=imaginative+realism&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&imgdii=_)

D Akey
07-19-2014, 05:04 AM
SOS has got the essence of one of my points. The tools of being able to construct realistically a fantasy image is a great way to get people to suspend their disbelief and to be able to go right to where the artist wanted to take us. In addition to his example, here is another example of someone who does what I'm referring to. As you pointed out there is photograph copying and there is realism and they are often very different, even though they both have the expectation in the viewer that what they are looking at is real. And infusing that fantasy realism with a strong handle on painting skill is a great combination -- whether elves in a forest or a normal or idealized barnyard.

One way one artist. Each has their own spin:
http://www.epilogue.net/gallery/enayla
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/186829084514746232/

Having said, that I also appreciate the painterly approach quite a lot. To compare it to guitar playing, which I'm studying, I've found that there are guitarists who's appeal is less about serving the song and more about watching their virtuosity. I once heard someone say that Steve Vai's audiences at a concert are probably predominantly guitarists. It's always dodgy to narrow the description of an artist. Vai is one of these top of the heap guitarists who can play super fast and his music exploits his technical abilities -- it's something of his signature. He seems to be less about pop songs and hooky melodies and more about guitar flash. Vai's stuff seems to be in the mental realm and precision much like competition musicians (drumlines for example with all their intricate patterns played super quick mirroring one another by several on the team) would have a repertoire showing what they can do -- the music points back at the musician as being the point - the artist is the feature rather than the painting. This kind of art frequently appeals to the mind. He's like a musical intellectual. I believe he backed up Frank Zappa. Understand my point is also there are many degrees of those who use their virtuosity as a component part of their show. He has a niche audience, mostly of guitarists who want to grow their technique I would imagine, who come to see him shoot off synchronized fireworks. They want to be able to do what he does and learn from his performance. To them, I would venture, it's more like going to a clinic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY8wyKuLY2k

There are other virtuosos like Eddie Van Halen who had entered the scene way back when with great virtuosity, yet he serve the song more, even though their virtuosity is a big component of the appeal. Maybe the more singing gets into the mix, the more hooky and less abstract it is. The guitarist shares the stage with the singer and the other instruments. And on the other extend, guitar can be super simple like with campfire songs where it's all about the song. But it satisfies on that level. It serves different purposes depending both on where the artist's strengths lie and what the artist is exploring. Guitarists likely study him also, but a large part of his appeal is the musical context he manages to insert his ground breaking virtuosity. He manages to harness the wild stuff into a song context very effectively. And it makes it super dynamic.

And then there are guitar artists like Julian Breem and Segovia where their virtuosity is within a narrower bandwidth, which is judged often based on how effectively and often how exact to the written work it is. I mean, they will say they interpret, and I suppose they do, but they don't deviate comparatively all that much. It's far subtler. It's very beautiful.

But each kind has their followers and adherents.

So I think similar criteria can apply to visual artists. Is it about the image or the virtuosity? And how effective is it in each respect to get what the artist is wanting. For a long time I was (maybe still am) a realistic artist and I used those sensibilities on diverse things that did not exist. I always admired and wanted to be a wild artist, but my clients wanted realism and when I tried to do more painterly things they didn't know how to handle it. So I kept realism as my focus as a practicality.
Now that I don't have those constraints any longer, I have to see if I can do the flashy painterly stuff and make it really work. Time will tell.

I do consider realists as illusionists and it's a wonderful thing to see it when it's done well.

copespeak
07-19-2014, 06:06 PM
Marconius, thank you. I am thrilled to be acknowledged is such a way. I'm glad you have found them useful.

I was teaching watercolour to some girls yesterday and trying to impress on them how there are so many beautiful accidents can be had in this magical medium.

There are many happy 'accidents' in Art Rage, where you blend and something wonderful appears. Different, but sometimes very unpredictable, and can be very satisfying.

Keep painting, I will look forward to seeing your work. :) :)

Gms9810
07-20-2014, 11:37 AM
As for my opinion, I'm really attracted to realistic paintings but I don't yet have the skill for that. I'm working toward realism, to be used as needed but not always. When I first started using artrage I was terrible, as everybody here knows. That was about a year and a half ago. I've never had an art lesson and at the time didn't think artrage was capable of realism but I was wrong. As an example I attached a photo of a wood duck:
82001
and my version after using it for about a year:
82002
It's not what I consider realistic but my point is that artrage can do it. I think people should do what they like and what they can do. If they can't draw the way they want then thy, like me, can always work toward it.
The big problem for me, is my own expectations of myself. I'm almost never happy with anything I draw. This duck was an exception. I think the biggest thig is to lern to be happy with one's own work, or else the whole thing is pointless. I'm not sure if this is along the lines of what you were asking.

marconius
07-21-2014, 10:39 PM
As for my opinion, I'm really attracted to realistic paintings but I don't yet have the skill for that. I'm working toward realism, to be used as needed but not always. When I first started using artrage I was terrible, as everybody here knows. That was about a year and a half ago. I've never had an art lesson and at the time didn't think artrage was capable of realism but I was wrong. As an example I attached a photo of a wood duck:
82001
and my version after using it for about a year:
82002
It's not what I consider realistic but my point is that artrage can do it. I think people should do what they like and what they can do. If they can't draw the way they want then thy, like me, can always work toward it.
The big problem for me, is my own expectations of myself. I'm almost never happy with anything I draw. This duck was an exception. I think the biggest thig is to lern to be happy with one's own work, or else the whole thing is pointless. I'm not sure if this is along the lines of what you were asking.

Thats a fantastic impression of that photo you have produced there sir and a credit to you indeed ,this whole artrage thing is as i'm sure you would agree, truly mind blowing and boggling in equal quantities.Every time i go to do something i find myself finding something new and then wondering off on a tangent experimenting with what i have found.More self control and strictness from within is required i fear .However its never dull ,frustrating at times ,but then thats art, joy, frustration,and the one that we all desire satisfaction ,that one at times being the hardest to achieve .You from the sound of it sir are your own worst critic and i can say the same ,at times nothing is good enough and would it seem all our efforts are in vain. And then you produce a picture as you have posted a lovely work in my eyes ,you don't need the photo' to compare it as your picture is better ,that is i can see where you have been with it ,it looks as though you are developing a style .And that my friend to me is art,something that has your name on it ,not literally as in a signature,but when you show another painting even without the signature one can say "i recognize that style",once you get to that level ,you can call yourself an artist.And to sum it all up this has been my thread all along,its fair to say that most of us are working from photo reference ,we would be foolish not to.And i as you sir and many others no doubt have fallen into the trap of believing that the perfect piece of art has to be a replica of what we are seeing before us,be it a portrait ,landscape still life whatever.Wrong, thats photography,our representation,of what we see before us is art ,so i have drawn the conclusion helped by you all ,that it is time to stop reaching for the unattainable,and start painting what i feel,not just what i see.

Gms9810
07-22-2014, 06:01 AM
Yeah, the possibilities are limited only by my talent. It drives me crazy.

Tonyjazz
07-22-2014, 12:37 PM
Making art for me is analogous to playing music. It's style. Finding your style takes time and much patience. Artrage is not a push one button software and by magic something happens. It takes effort, time and......commitment. What is the goal of any artist? Become famous, sell artworks, get rich? I just enjoy painting as much as I do playing music professionally. Can I change the world with my artwork, no. Do I want to change the world with my artwork, no. Enjoy the ride.......its all about getting there, sooner or later. If anyone asks if digital painters are artists just respond with a resounding YES.

Gms9810
07-22-2014, 04:39 PM
I enjoy it too, I can easily sit and draw for hours. I make a point of drawing every day, both in artrage and physical media. I didn't imply that it should be easy, very few things really rewarding are easy.