5 ms·

Agreed. Hyper-realism, while impressive to look at, is not really all that difficult to achieve mechanically (relatively, of course). Even if the finishing was

Agreed. Hyper-realism, while impressive to look at, is not really all that difficult to achieve mechanically (relatively, of course). Even if the finishing wasn't done by an adult, I don't think it's the mark of genius. Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way. If this is the sole work of the kid, he has a great eye and fantastic mechanical abilities - but 'once in a lifetime genius' may be overselling it just a bit.

Karuma 8y ago
Indeed. This is the easiest kind of "art" (I wouldn't even call it that, as art means something else to me). Just look around any portrait painting on YouTube, there's millions of them with this kid's same results. Anyone can become a human copy machine with various simple methods. There's a reason why all of his pictures just look like a photograph with zero creativity. (The same reason why great painters stopped trying to achieve hyper-realism since~ van Gogh and the invention/popularization of the photographic camera...)
- coldtea 8y ago
  Exactly. Plus even for the masters that could totally achieve hyper-realism, the key to their work was never its realism.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  > There's a reason why all of his pictures just look like a photograph with zero creativity Wow, that's what you got out of it? We consider photographers to be great artists when they catch evocative moments in life. There's a skill and an art to it, we don't dismiss is it because of the technical qualities, nor because it provides too much realism. There's a skill and an art to hyper-realism (which I wouldn't actually call any of this work hyper-realist), and part of it is hitting those same evocative notes, capturing moments that are distinctly human and that we can all connect to in our own ways. Our response to these things is what makes art ... art.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >We consider photographers to be great artists when they catch evocative moments in life. That's because (and when) they catch them and frame them appropriately. We don't consider any random photographer capturing a ho-hum scene a "great artist". And these are, technique aside (which is not that great either), pretty mundane framings and poses. >There's a skill and an art to hyper-realism Sure, but in this one there's only the skill -- not much of the art. There are hyper-realists that have the art part figured out too.
    - nkozyra 8y ago
      Again, I don't think that this is really hyperrealism anyway and am a bit confused why it's being labeled as such. The dismissive comments here are confusing because it seems there's a rush to say "it's not that impressive." I think at minimum it is technically impressive for someone that age. Prodigy? Perhaps not, but it's noteworthy that he's done this at this level. Art is of course always going to be a subjective discussion, so I don't see much point in arguing whether this is "good" or not, but I can say that personally I found the moments and poses evocative enough, which is not something I experience with any given piece of art. It's in the eye of the beholder, of course. But they resonated in the way that unique moments in life get cemented in your subconscious, only to be plucked out by others who feel and experience and finally commit them to some medium to share. If this is indeed his work I'm impressed given his age.
      - Karuma 8y ago
        If you find the moments and poses evocative enough, that only speaks about the photographer. The kid only photocopied the photos to his canvas/paper. I'm fine with you or anyone else being impressed with this, but for many others like me this isn't impressive at all. I believe anyone can produce drawings and paintings like these; even much younger kids, once you teach them this very simple grid method. You say art is a subjective discussion and I agree. What we don't seem to agree on is what art is. Perfectly copying a photo by using a grid certainly isn't art to me. Or course, if he took any of those photos, then yes, we could subjectively discuss if he's a good artist or not, but his realistic drawings have nothing to do with that.
mockingbirdy 8y ago
> he has a great eye and fantastic mechanical abilities - but 'once in a lifetime genius' may be overselling it just a bit. Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. Most parts of art are mechanical in their core and can be automated. I don't think there's any reason to assume that he isn't a gifted artist while people who do nearly the same but just use other source material e.g. draw realistic images of dragons are considered as creative or those that just put some blots on a canvas - just look at images like "Violet, Green and Red". What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. And because of that, I don't see why it's necessary to criticize this boy for lacking artistic genius; this stuff is so extremely subjective that it says more about you than anything else. The next step - mixing interesting ideas and concepts to create creative new art - can also be automated IMO. > Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way. Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. There are not many who I would consider to be geniuses in the field. And something like this [1] is more creative IMO than many of technically demanding works or those blots on a canvas. I would say that the commercialisation of arts destroyed the appeal of it. It's ok if a work is "just nice" or creates a small feeling and nothing more. The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They're not and this is why art (without all that money) is beautiful. It can be a beautiful place of creativity and egality. [1]: https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpicasso/ https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpi...
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. No, it wouldn't. It would be considered at best derivative. There are tons of hyper-realist artists. Some even do it at street corners for handouts. And copying cliches of previous artists/periods doesn't buy one much (just like writing some derivate polka tunes in 2018 doesn't mean much to music fans). >What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. It's not supposed to be compared to other fields. And it's not even supposed to be considered "genius" (as in super smart), but "artistic genius" which is something else (e.g. uniquely expressive). >Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. It's the opinion of the art scene and art crowd that decides though, not some individual personal opinions (which could also be totally uniformed or look for things that aren't important artistically). >The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They just convey that someone is thinking that the painting is a good investment (or be good to launder money) and can be resold. Says nothing about the genius of the painter. Some critically trite images by famous painters are sold for tons of millions as well.

Karuma 8y ago

Indeed. This is the easiest kind of "art" (I wouldn't even call it that, as art means something else to me). Just look around any portrait painting on YouTube, there's millions of them with this kid's same results. Anyone can become a human copy machine with various simple methods. There's a reason why all of his pictures just look like a photograph with zero creativity. (The same reason why great painters stopped trying to achieve hyper-realism since~ van Gogh and the invention/popularization of the photographic camera...)

coldtea 8y ago
Exactly. Plus even for the masters that could totally achieve hyper-realism, the key to their work was never its realism.
nkozyra 8y ago
> There's a reason why all of his pictures just look like a photograph with zero creativity Wow, that's what you got out of it? We consider photographers to be great artists when they catch evocative moments in life. There's a skill and an art to it, we don't dismiss is it because of the technical qualities, nor because it provides too much realism. There's a skill and an art to hyper-realism (which I wouldn't actually call any of this work hyper-realist), and part of it is hitting those same evocative notes, capturing moments that are distinctly human and that we can all connect to in our own ways. Our response to these things is what makes art ... art.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >We consider photographers to be great artists when they catch evocative moments in life. That's because (and when) they catch them and frame them appropriately. We don't consider any random photographer capturing a ho-hum scene a "great artist". And these are, technique aside (which is not that great either), pretty mundane framings and poses. >There's a skill and an art to hyper-realism Sure, but in this one there's only the skill -- not much of the art. There are hyper-realists that have the art part figured out too.
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    Again, I don't think that this is really hyperrealism anyway and am a bit confused why it's being labeled as such. The dismissive comments here are confusing because it seems there's a rush to say "it's not that impressive." I think at minimum it is technically impressive for someone that age. Prodigy? Perhaps not, but it's noteworthy that he's done this at this level. Art is of course always going to be a subjective discussion, so I don't see much point in arguing whether this is "good" or not, but I can say that personally I found the moments and poses evocative enough, which is not something I experience with any given piece of art. It's in the eye of the beholder, of course. But they resonated in the way that unique moments in life get cemented in your subconscious, only to be plucked out by others who feel and experience and finally commit them to some medium to share. If this is indeed his work I'm impressed given his age.
    - Karuma 8y ago
      If you find the moments and poses evocative enough, that only speaks about the photographer. The kid only photocopied the photos to his canvas/paper. I'm fine with you or anyone else being impressed with this, but for many others like me this isn't impressive at all. I believe anyone can produce drawings and paintings like these; even much younger kids, once you teach them this very simple grid method. You say art is a subjective discussion and I agree. What we don't seem to agree on is what art is. Perfectly copying a photo by using a grid certainly isn't art to me. Or course, if he took any of those photos, then yes, we could subjectively discuss if he's a good artist or not, but his realistic drawings have nothing to do with that.

mockingbirdy 8y ago

> he has a great eye and fantastic mechanical abilities - but 'once in a lifetime genius' may be overselling it just a bit. Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. Most parts of art are mechanical in their core and can be automated. I don't think there's any reason to assume that he isn't a gifted artist while people who do nearly the same but just use other source material e.g. draw realistic images of dragons are considered as creative or those that just put some blots on a canvas - just look at images like "Violet, Green and Red". What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. And because of that, I don't see why it's necessary to criticize this boy for lacking artistic genius; this stuff is so extremely subjective that it says more about you than anything else. The next step - mixing interesting ideas and concepts to create creative new art - can also be automated IMO. > Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way. Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. There are not many who I would consider to be geniuses in the field. And something like this [1] is more creative IMO than many of technically demanding works or those blots on a canvas. I would say that the commercialisation of arts destroyed the appeal of it. It's ok if a work is "just nice" or creates a small feeling and nothing more. The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They're not and this is why art (without all that money) is beautiful. It can be a beautiful place of creativity and egality. [1]: https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpicasso/ https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpi...

coldtea 8y ago
>Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art. No, it wouldn't. It would be considered at best derivative. There are tons of hyper-realist artists. Some even do it at street corners for handouts. And copying cliches of previous artists/periods doesn't buy one much (just like writing some derivate polka tunes in 2018 doesn't mean much to music fans). >What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. It's not supposed to be compared to other fields. And it's not even supposed to be considered "genius" (as in super smart), but "artistic genius" which is something else (e.g. uniquely expressive). >Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. It's the opinion of the art scene and art crowd that decides though, not some individual personal opinions (which could also be totally uniformed or look for things that aren't important artistically). >The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They just convey that someone is thinking that the painting is a good investment (or be good to launder money) and can be resold. Says nothing about the genius of the painter. Some critically trite images by famous painters are sold for tons of millions as well.