[-HoodZ-]

recently ive been interested in photorealism...i know about artrenewal.org...does anybody have any more links for me to look at....

heres a Richard Estes i've found...absolutely beautiful stuff
Richard Estes

[[Shizo]]

Hmm, was he overpainting or somethin? If he did out of his head, i'll kis him

[Sumaleth]

Shizo;

Photorealism is the reproduction of photographs, usually of subjects that include a lot of reflections (which is where the photo comes in handy). So all those are based on photos, they're not out of anyones head.

--

Back to the question - last time I did a search on google.com for Protorealism artists I found tons of links, so that would be the place to look. BTW, artrenewal.com is mostly definitely NOT Photorealism, in fact I expect those guys would find Photorealism to be the artistic equivalent of Satan. There's not really any artistic skill in photorealism painting, it's purely a mechanical skill (but still impressive when done well).

Row.

[[Shizo]]

Hmm.. i like the result. Would be great to have a piece like that hanging on the wall.
It's like a better way to size up photos!

PS: sumaleth you're so raw, QRally was the sh*t :D

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: [Shizo] ]

[Nilwort]

Photorealistic painting must take a lot of skill and knowledge of the way light reacts in the real world and stuff...but in my opinion why just recreate things that you see with your eye other than just using it as ego-masturbation? Saying things like "yes look at this picture, it looks nearly IDENTICAL to what you'd see out the window, aren't I skilled?!" and feeling gratified by it...then again...why do people build toothpick models of sailing ships...I guess it's fun too look at something that took a lot of effort by the artist and see all the little nuances of the brush strokes and being amazed by it...

It just feels really wierd to me...sort of perverse...like the artist is trying to lure you into his little fantasy world or work of art that took so much time and dedication when it's really just a pice of paper with little marks on it or a model made of toothpicks....

I don't really know what I'm trying to say...I guess to put it simply...If I had the skill and the patience to paint one of those photo-realistic scenes, I'd be tempted add something to it out of my imagination to add a twist on the piece...otherwise I'd feel no motivation to paint the thing in the first place. Maybe It's just me being self-centered and neurotic and not realizing that people actually do things that don't have to make some kind of personal statment to the viewer...just a pretty picture that took a lot of time to paint...

[Ian]

he paints lots of cities 'eh.

[jr]

i've seen estes's work at the meisel gallery in manhattan. it's pretty big. but aside from that it's not too impressive, imho.

[Jon Loewen]

Claudio Bravo
No idea where I stumbled across this... it's been fermenting in my favourites for a while now. Is it truly "photo-realistic"? There are quite a few that I wouldn't mistake for photography (although there are some that I most certainly would). Either way, however, they're all very nice. Go see.



Aaron Board This is also cool stuff. I like his use of multiple panels.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Loewen ]

[wayfinder]

hey, i recognize these estes pics - prints of them are all over the local mcdonald's!

[edible snowman]

isn't this pretty much what eyewoo does?

[Rogelio Olguin]

photo realism adds more detail than photos into a painting if you see the photos they are really blury in most parts but when you see the real painting it is way too perfect that is where the art comes in... I rather do stuff from my imagination but photorealism work is something that is awesome but at the same time I think the painter was crazy... doing such a work...

but usally Photo realistic paintings are made of subjects like historical buildings and really nice camara shots... it takes a lot of work to get a good compostion with realism sometimes and that is what they go for... they find nice places with good angles take photos and reproduce it so it gives a greater feeling than the real picture. Sometimes in photorealistic works the colors are brighter than the picture or duller... that is where the artist part comes in giving the scene the feeling it needs.

But I rather do things from my imagination...

My fathers friend is a painter a he does a lot of photorealistic work from pueblos in mexico and important historical events... the photos are not great but some how he puts the true feeling of those pueblos into his painting and that is what it is all about when making works like this.

[Light]

Sorry to be my normal cynical self but most of the assertations and logic used in this thread are not accurate in the least.

Photorealism has nothing to do with art being "fantasy" or "imaginative". It is a style characterized by the ability to fool the eye into thinking the picture is real enough to be a photo or just plain "real".

Likewise, contrary to popular belief "fantasy" artwork need not be primarily drawn from the imagination. Boris vallejo is excellent example of this.

Some artist shun photorealism because it may imply a lack of artistic themes/elements but this need not be the case at all. Of course, beginners of the technique may only be able to do simple objects such as screw drivers, cameras, or say a mouse. The advanced artist can do anything he desires in this manner.

Stating that photorealsim doesnt require any skill or such is silly. This is like stating that modern art requires no skill or that realism requires no skill/artisticness.. Or stating that any of the above are just "techniques".

Photorealsim may sometimes be confused with "hyper realism". This is an attempt to make a pictre look more real then real. Famous hyper realism artist are Sorayama Hajime..

Anyway.. the artist at artrenewal were most realistic. Some probably practiced photorealism -- or tried to fool the eye into believing the picture was real -- and some didnt. Some artist do both styles.

THe purist may think that to be photoralistic a picture must look as if it were taken from a photo but generally the definition would apply to any picture that trys to fool the eye into believing the object is real and not a painting.