4 ms·

Painting of Tica by Dru Blair

30 points by auferstehung 17y ago

vijayr 17y ago
awesome
petite 17y ago
This guy is amazing. He also was the official artist for the Star Trek: Voyager books.
michael_dorfman 17y ago
I agree with him completely when he writes: "The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills." However, when he writes: "This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal" I have to say, "not so much".
- petite 17y ago
  The decisions he made for the painting go down to a level of detail many of us could not comprehend. It's akin to writing an entire operating system, then showing it to someone who uses computers very rarely in their life. That person may think that the operating system is just like all the others they've used, but it's only the people who are coded the thing that can realize how different it truly is.
  - michael_dorfman 17y ago
    That doesn't make much difference to me as a viewer. I'm impressed with his chops, but I don't see what makes his reproduction better than the original photo.
    - petite 17y ago
      Oh, I'm not arguing the artistic/aesthetic quality here. I was only saying that I do agree with him when he says that he made many decisions in changing the original for what he sees as aesthetically better.
    - mhartl 17y ago
      Is the original photo in the story? I think all the images are of the painting.
diN0bot 17y ago
my housemate's first python script was to help with documenting processes such as this one. when he runs the script it takes a screenshot and then provides a text box for him to comment in. it basically added version control to his mechanical engineering design process. he wanted to document why he was making certain design changes as he went. i imagine it work for this process, too.
ankeshk 17y ago
Saw this a couple of weeks back. 9 other paintings by 9 other folks that look like photos: http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-that-are-actually-paintings/ http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-that-a...
Tichy 17y ago
What would you paint if you could paint like that?
- bmelton 17y ago
  Money. I suspect that Dru could make quite the counterfeiter if he decided to be.
sfphotoarts 17y ago
as the article points out photorealism is pointless, except as practice and enjoyment for the craftsperson. What I find interesting in this is that what he has actually painted is not Tica but the imperfections imparted by the little digicam and the inkjet printing technique. That's pretty funny, to reproduce the imperfections of the medium. It's only really interesting from an artistic perspective if the picture were instead titled 'Nikon 8700 Inkjet print'. Very talented craftsperson.
- ellyagg 17y ago
  Uh, no, he didn't say photorealism was pointless. In fact, he said the opposite: > As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision. The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills. Most of my aviation paintings would be impossible to photograph, such as Timing is Everything for example. This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal. Your "craftsperson" reference is snide. I have a couple of snide opinions myself, I guess. It's obvious that there is a wide variety of compositions just dying to have photorealistic treatment--subjects where, as the author points out, getting a camera shot would be impossible. Unfortunately, being able to do photorealistic art takes real skill, and that skill appears to be consistently deprecated by the art world.
  - yters 17y ago
    If someone can paint anything they want photorealistically, I'd say that's much better than photoshop.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    It seems to me that it's consistently deprecated because it's harder than anything else visual artists do, and there's an objective measurement of how well it was done. I don't have a very high opinion of most art, you'll gather. :)
caffeine 17y ago
I can't wait 'til somebody makes the tools to let this guy create holograms of people.
diiq 17y ago
What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is. What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art. Photos are not 'mere reproductions of reality' any more than his painting is. Paint, print, screen, clay, plaster -- these are not reality; they do not have the fidelity of the real world. When I paint, I must decide to what degree the intensity of light is important, to what degree the detail is important, to what degree the tonal range is relevant to my portrayal. Even more importantly, choosing which part of reality to examine is vital! Can a photographer pay no attention to aperture, shutter speed, composition, crop, focus? Can they ignore the possibilities of manipulating the world before photographing it (arranging, building, lighting, removing components until their "metaphysical value judgment" is satisfied? Sure, they can ignore all that. A camera with a timer can make an exposure, no metaphysical presence necessary. But no artist must do so. And even leaving things up to the camera is a "metaphysical value judgment." You didn't make art. You used tools to apply pigment to a surface replicating a temporary sensory input; a purely mechanical recording of reality.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is. " Well, perhaps, but it's border-line kitsch. "What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art." Lots of people think that way. Often they prefer kitsch and schlock. Technical skill for it's own sake is pretty worthless. It's impressive, to a degree, but what matters is to what it is applied. It's the difference between being able to recite the whole of On Lisp from memory and being able to write innovative software.
  - diiq 17y ago
    "Well, perhaps, but it's border-line kitsch." Bah. I'm not making aesthetic judgments --- I don't care if it's good or not. I do care that he is willing to deny an entire medium the ability to change the way I think, feel, and sense the world. We live in a time when people think that art is a frivolity; silly at best and a senseless waste at worst. That is not because people have become less intelligent or less capable of culture. It's because artists (a community I count myself within) are failing to communicate, to relate to the rest of humanity. Artists denying each other's work and medium of choice is a pretty vicious act of treachery against the mission of reminding the world that art is vital --- it is both a living field and a necessity of life.

30 points by auferstehung 17y ago

vijayr 17y ago

awesome

petite 17y ago

This guy is amazing. He also was the official artist for the Star Trek: Voyager books.

michael_dorfman 17y ago

I agree with him completely when he writes: "The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills." However, when he writes: "This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal" I have to say, "not so much".

petite 17y ago
The decisions he made for the painting go down to a level of detail many of us could not comprehend. It's akin to writing an entire operating system, then showing it to someone who uses computers very rarely in their life. That person may think that the operating system is just like all the others they've used, but it's only the people who are coded the thing that can realize how different it truly is.
- michael_dorfman 17y ago
  That doesn't make much difference to me as a viewer. I'm impressed with his chops, but I don't see what makes his reproduction better than the original photo.
  - petite 17y ago
    Oh, I'm not arguing the artistic/aesthetic quality here. I was only saying that I do agree with him when he says that he made many decisions in changing the original for what he sees as aesthetically better.
  - mhartl 17y ago
    Is the original photo in the story? I think all the images are of the painting.

diN0bot 17y ago

my housemate's first python script was to help with documenting processes such as this one. when he runs the script it takes a screenshot and then provides a text box for him to comment in. it basically added version control to his mechanical engineering design process. he wanted to document why he was making certain design changes as he went. i imagine it work for this process, too.

ankeshk 17y ago

Saw this a couple of weeks back. 9 other paintings by 9 other folks that look like photos: http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-that-are-actually-paintings/ http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-that-a...

Tichy 17y ago

What would you paint if you could paint like that?

bmelton 17y ago
Money. I suspect that Dru could make quite the counterfeiter if he decided to be.

sfphotoarts 17y ago

as the article points out photorealism is pointless, except as practice and enjoyment for the craftsperson. What I find interesting in this is that what he has actually painted is not Tica but the imperfections imparted by the little digicam and the inkjet printing technique. That's pretty funny, to reproduce the imperfections of the medium. It's only really interesting from an artistic perspective if the picture were instead titled 'Nikon 8700 Inkjet print'. Very talented craftsperson.

ellyagg 17y ago
Uh, no, he didn't say photorealism was pointless. In fact, he said the opposite: > As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision. The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills. Most of my aviation paintings would be impossible to photograph, such as Timing is Everything for example. This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal. Your "craftsperson" reference is snide. I have a couple of snide opinions myself, I guess. It's obvious that there is a wide variety of compositions just dying to have photorealistic treatment--subjects where, as the author points out, getting a camera shot would be impossible. Unfortunately, being able to do photorealistic art takes real skill, and that skill appears to be consistently deprecated by the art world.
- yters 17y ago
  If someone can paint anything they want photorealistically, I'd say that's much better than photoshop.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  It seems to me that it's consistently deprecated because it's harder than anything else visual artists do, and there's an objective measurement of how well it was done. I don't have a very high opinion of most art, you'll gather. :)

caffeine 17y ago

I can't wait 'til somebody makes the tools to let this guy create holograms of people.

diiq 17y ago

What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is. What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art. Photos are not 'mere reproductions of reality' any more than his painting is. Paint, print, screen, clay, plaster -- these are not reality; they do not have the fidelity of the real world. When I paint, I must decide to what degree the intensity of light is important, to what degree the detail is important, to what degree the tonal range is relevant to my portrayal. Even more importantly, choosing which part of reality to examine is vital! Can a photographer pay no attention to aperture, shutter speed, composition, crop, focus? Can they ignore the possibilities of manipulating the world before photographing it (arranging, building, lighting, removing components until their "metaphysical value judgment" is satisfied? Sure, they can ignore all that. A camera with a timer can make an exposure, no metaphysical presence necessary. But no artist must do so. And even leaving things up to the camera is a "metaphysical value judgment." You didn't make art. You used tools to apply pigment to a surface replicating a temporary sensory input; a purely mechanical recording of reality.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is. " Well, perhaps, but it's border-line kitsch. "What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art." Lots of people think that way. Often they prefer kitsch and schlock. Technical skill for it's own sake is pretty worthless. It's impressive, to a degree, but what matters is to what it is applied. It's the difference between being able to recite the whole of On Lisp from memory and being able to write innovative software.
- diiq 17y ago
  "Well, perhaps, but it's border-line kitsch." Bah. I'm not making aesthetic judgments --- I don't care if it's good or not. I do care that he is willing to deny an entire medium the ability to change the way I think, feel, and sense the world. We live in a time when people think that art is a frivolity; silly at best and a senseless waste at worst. That is not because people have become less intelligent or less capable of culture. It's because artists (a community I count myself within) are failing to communicate, to relate to the rest of humanity. Artists denying each other's work and medium of choice is a pretty vicious act of treachery against the mission of reminding the world that art is vital --- it is both a living field and a necessity of life.