3 ms·

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,

by 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.
      - nkozyra 8y ago
        > Perfectly copying a photo by using a grid certainly isn't art to me. The process should be irrelevant. Creating art is communicating human experience. Consuming art is the reaction and the resonance. How it feels to create and/or to consume defines what it is. If it doesn't resonate with you, fine, that's why I said it's wholly subjective. But when you make comments like this it makes me feel like you're putting up a barrier that would never let you appreciate what's intended to be expressed here.

by Karuma 8y ago

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.
    - nkozyra 8y ago
      > Perfectly copying a photo by using a grid certainly isn't art to me. The process should be irrelevant. Creating art is communicating human experience. Consuming art is the reaction and the resonance. How it feels to create and/or to consume defines what it is. If it doesn't resonate with you, fine, that's why I said it's wholly subjective. But when you make comments like this it makes me feel like you're putting up a barrier that would never let you appreciate what's intended to be expressed here.