I have always wondered what was the artistic value of a painting copied from a photo except for impressing people who might not know it is not a life painting, or for making a sort of collage that's more "artistic" than a collage of photos made in Photoshop for example - and in general used in a way to justify a photograph's artistic value by relocating it unto a canvas. Or for use merely as a stylizing tool, like a filter in Photoshop (one that's a achieved through hard work comparably, of course).
I would love to hear the opinion of anyone who thinks differently and can explain. I suspect that if I, as the artist, would have been sure of the merits of my work without the need to impress, I would have mentioned the technique used.
Have you ever tried to paint something THAT photo-realistic with oils? It takes some mad skill. I don't care if he painted this from life or took a photo of a model behind plastic, it's still an incredible amount of skill to replicate it in oils like that. I'm a professional artist and I wouldn't be able to replicate something like that in oils if my life depended on it. Some of my classmates in college absolutely could, though, and it was pretty amazing to see. As for the artistic merit, if you're going to go for the "deep" of it beyond the technical skill shown, it's the meaning behind the piece.
The artist said it was oils on canvas, so I'm not sure what you're meaning by mentioning the "technique" used. It was oils on canvas. My illustrations have the materials and programs I used listed, but I don't go into the techniques I use on every piece.
What do you think is the meaning behind presenting a painting against presenting, say, the photo the painting has been copied from, assuming it's a one-to-one copy?
I well recognize that's seeing a "photo-real" painting gives a viewer a certain 'wow' response that leaves them looking deeper into a piece and exploring what it means to them, etc. - for serving this effect it is great. But I wonder whether the painting has any artistic value, as a painting, beyond that (if hypothetically I have on the one hand a photo and on the other hand an exact copy of it in, say, oils on canvas).
Just to put the argument across, by technique I meant method - for example projecting a photo unto a canvas and painting over the projection. In this case "oil on canvas" would be the medium.
You can't project a photo on a canvas and paint over a projection without it completely screwing up your colors. The suggestion makes me want to ask again: have you ever tried to paint something photo-realistic in oils on canvas?
You seem to think my argument is against how impressive this specific painting might or might not be, when it is a hypothetical question about the artistic justification of a technique - any technique - that it's essence is to copy a photo with paint unto a canvas, making not an interpretation of reality but a very skillful copy of a copy of reality. Of course this does not mean that a piece doesn't have other artistic merits that could otherwise be judged from the photo the painting is copied from. And this is not affected by my inexperience with oils.
I don't think photo-copying techniques are easy or do not require admirable skill, but I don't seem to see the artistic merits of them for the sake of themselves.
Whether this specific piece is actually impressive or not, in my or your opinion, is a completely different debate, one that I'm in doubt that we'll be able to abridge.
Id have to agree with that one, and whats worse is its listed as being traditional art as oil on canvas, yet it looks 100% digital to me. No brush strokes, lacks canvas texture. I'm not a pro, but it looks suspicious to me.
[link] Aaron Board's website. He's a figure painter who taught a class I took in college and his work is pretty amazing.
All of these are oils on canvas and they're just as photo-realistic as this piece. Canvas paintings don't necessarily have to have brush strokes everywhere or have a blatantly obvious canvas texture to them, especially if the paint is thick or the lighting isn't at an angle that shows the texture. You can't see brush strokes in Renaissance artwork, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't paint. That's just what happens when you blend your colors that much in order to avoid having visible brush stokes on it.
Thankyou, I'm not a painter my self (colored pencil is my typical choice) and I kind of spoke too soon in this case. I was suprised to say the least when I down loaded the full size and saw some of the finer details, still hard to detect even at that magnification. This is indeed very skilled work. And yes that is some very skilled art work you linked, I'll have to give it more attention when I have time. Thanks again.
I don't know what’s going on in the picture but it looks like a man murdering a woman to me. Her hand moving to remove the clear plastic (typical plastic used in suffocations) and his hand stopping her. Even if that is not your intent, it really looks that way. I tend to hate serial killer type art, having grown up knowing one (actually not knowing him, not the REAL him anyway.) The truth is they really are all a bunch of cry babies when the chips are down and they are standing before the man who will send them to the gas chamber. The one I had known became sweet as pie when he face trial in a state where they could offer him a little of what he dished out so many times.
So a completely tasteful piece of artwork disturbs you because of a lack of a maturity tag, but the thousands upon thousands of pornographic pictures posted on DA daily without tags is nothing to complain about? I fail to see your logic in any of this.
Okay so you're upset because you chose to see the picture in a darker light than intended, but you can't demand an artist to add a mature tag when the opinion of the viewer perceives it as mature. If the artist made it not intending for it to be considered mature then it's up to them as to whether or not it is tagged or not.
It's like going o a museum where there are statues containing full-frontal nudity. They're not going to censor it because one or a few people get offended because it was never meant to be considered mature.
You fail to see it because you are unwilling to. There is logic in his claim and his interpretation is his own, just as yours is your own, and mine is my own. You declare your interpretation to be correct, and his to be incorrect. What gives you that right? Man? God? The Devil? Superior evolution? You opinion is no more valid than his or mine. But it is valid to you and as such I respect it, as you should respect his opinion, which happens to include this needing a mature tag.
And that porn you speak of, how do you know he does not make issue of it as well, do you stalk him, do you follow his every move and see he does not. No, because you cant. And just because many people break the DA rules, does not mean one can’t try to help the issue in what way one can. It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Wouldn’t you agree?
Of course so many people have chosen not to see his logic because it is not worth seeing. It's like wanting the statue of David to be censored. It's tasteful, not mature. No, it's not an opinion, it is in fact a fact that that's the intention behind the piece. If you look at the artist's work you can see that they are not fetish pieces, they are not gore pieces; they are metaphoric. Oh yes, you can so simply say that art is up to interpretation, but there is always a common theme that all viewers should agree on.
No I don't stalk *Black-December but really, why waste time making a pointless argument over actual artwork that's really well-made when there's an influx of non-art filling this site. Maybe he does report it. It's just fooling wasting time, days and hours of time, arguing over this piece when there is worse out there.
Again you put you point of view above his or any other. But if you were made the target of the mob, you would receive the same unreasonable, narrow minded hate messages as you have bestowed on him. In fact I could probably dig up quite a sizable mob of just the sort of people that would chew you out to no end. Corruption of the young is a very touchy subject (though I certainly would not do that.)
His argument is that children should not see this, wholesome if nothing else. Yours is that they should. Personally I see his point of view more clearly than I do yours, children need not witness the misery and hardships of this life if they don’t need to. The statue of David you compare this to is not even on the same page as dark art. You and I are numb to it, children are not. I can still remember with perfect recall all the simple horrors of my childhood, that gave me endless nightmares, yet they don’t seem the least bit scary now.
So sheltering children from the truths of life is bad? Seriously what? When I was young and someone died, I was outright told they died. There was no sugar coating. Now that I'm an adult I can appeciate and respect death whereas children who are sheltered grow up never truly understand the harshness of life and find things that should be sad as funny. So yes, call a spade a spade a cigar a cigar and youths will better understand and respect what they see.
However, your response was entirely off topic as anyone with working eyes can see that this picture is metaphoric and not blatant. And lol, :devBlac-December: was able to peacefully conclude the conversation I was having with him without any butthurt on anyone's part and yet you continue to whiteknight for him.
I was only responding to replies as I'm a bit busy. But if you feel it is concluded with Black-December I'll leave you at that. He has obviously handled the issue better than I. Our points of view seem to contradict so no point pressing the issue any further. Have a nice day.
Hello again, Never expected to find you protesting art like this, but your right this does need a mature tag. (don't die of shock that someone has agreed with you for a change) Everyone here seems to discribe their inner most feelings in the matter. But none seem willing to see what is written so clearly, this is an immage of death at first glance, And I agree you'd really have to push the limits to see it as anything else. But as a future note, dont post complaints on DD's you get burned most of the time as people run to the artists defense, right or wrong. Its a self justification thing, if they fav'ed what you dispise its judgment on them as well, so they will dog pile on you.
Thanks, I'm glad someone agrees with me atleast. Thanks, and yes your right, I never should have made a comment. I reported it, but I really should have left it at that. Odds are nothing will be done, it seems the mob has spoken. and death art is A-okay with DA. I really should just pull all my Mature tags and let the meat hit the fan