ArtRage 5 Product PageArtRage Lite Product PageArtRage for iOS Product PageArtRage for Android Product PageArtRage  Android Oil Painter Free Product PageArtRage  Free Demos Page

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Painting or Photo?

  1. #1

    Painting or Photo?

    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!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Torino
    Posts
    1,427
    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
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andreamgart

    That's what art's about, isn't it -- at some point it's about the relationship between the art and the viewer, sort of like speed dating. (D Akey)

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    599
    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!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,818
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    22,517
    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.
    "Not a bit is wasted and the best is yet to come. . ." -- remembered from a dream

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    538

    Photopainting

    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    302
    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.
    Last edited by jmac; 07-17-2014 at 02:05 AM.

  9. #9

    Thanks Robyn .

    Quote Originally Posted by copespeak View Post
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    2,874
    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 - By: Marina Dieul

    Imaginative Realism
    Nothing is easy to the unwilling.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •