[Freddio]

http://www.toypaintings.com./

wow..

[Frost]

Very impressive!

[edible snowman]

this is his method

I use photography to make studies for my paintings. I take photographs of arrangements of toys or other objects with close-up lenses. After many photos are taken, the strongest one is chosen and projected onto a prepared surface. A careful pencil tracing is then made. Next stencils are cut for the large areas of colour and painted on with the airbrush. Smaller details are painted with a fine brush. Shading and highlighting are added in the later stages with fine detail airbrushes. Finally, corrections are made and the painting is finished.

[fuddo]

"easier said than done"

[NukleoN]

Geez I think someone would have to be obsessive compulsive to do this! Take a freakin picture already heh..or time to break out the 3D proggie.

[Freddio]

heh

edible snowman it apears that yoou are implying that waht he is doing is cheating..

define cheating define photography deine art.


even so anyone who can reacreate a photograph in such detail is extremely talented.

[edible snowman]

no, im just posting it.

[FatPenguin]

the thing is, they look so much like photographs that you find yourself asking 'what's the point?'

even so, his skill is still impressive

[Freddio]

edible snowman ok

[dr . bang]

Fatpenguin, whats the point? He has achieved his point, to make it look photo realistic.

[Oblagon]

Circus Clown

[geoman2k]

honestly, i don't like his artwork at all... all the paintings are the some, and the compositions are terrible. everything is cluttered, theres tooo much shiney crap.... the list goes on forever. oh well, its just an opinion

[burn0ut]

yea but he can paint PHOTOREALISITKCLY
or someshit, i still give him props, did you see his still life paintings.... shit

[Silybum]

weird everyone's thinks (myself included as well) if you're gonna do something so photorealistic then might as well take a picture. Yet funnily even though I think that, I try myself to make everything as real as possible...hehe guess when I actually get it real I'm gonna tell myself 'what was the bloody point?'.
Only reason for doing it I guess would be to get technicly proficient so one could make something out of imagination and make it realistic, in my case I think that's the reason. Or I'm just stubborn and keep trying to do something that so far I cant...

[worthless_meat_sack]

photos don't look real to me.

Photography has such a huge range. The toy paintings seem to be imitating poorly crafted photography. I am sure this is intentional.

The technical skill required to accomplish this is minimal. And the role of technical skill in art is often minimal, as it should be.

To say something is photrealistic is to say it mimics a photo. Like intelligence is defined as that which is measured by an intelligence test, nothing more can be said about it.

[Freddio]

The technical skill required to accomplish this is minimal


HA

[morphgfx]

i think the problem here is, that the only skill he needs to have to do this stuff is to copy a photograph perfectly. no knowledge about traditional techniques, perspective, color, composition, imagination or design is needed. a very good painter (we are speaking about realism here; no modern art stuff, like filling a bag with color, making a lot of holes in it and finally let it rotate above your canvas; hope you know what i mean...) is able to capture things a photograph will never be able to capture. look at the 20th century russian realists for example.

i do absolutely agree to geoman2k about what he said about the composition. i realy can't look on his stuff for long...

sorry toypainting-lovers, just my oppinion...
think his stuff is boring as hell :|

-morph

[Joachim]

I'm not impressed at all. This is somehting I've mentioned before, as always, I don't understand why so many think that what to strive for as an artist is to get something as real as poosible no matter what cost. I belive that you're not a good artist when you're only able to paint what you and everyone else see, but when you're capable to see beyond and create "something more". There are a reason that some people take picture and some paint, why do one of the professions with another medium....that's like, I can paint with my ass, isn't that amazing or what? Like looking at idiots on tv trying to break record, like f.ex if a person can put millions of pens in his nose....what's the goal for doing this ? the way he works, it seems like there's no vision, except, I will duplicate this phot and I will "cheat" or do whatever just to get it as real as possible. WHen you've done that once or twice, what makes a person want to keep on doing it ?

I will never understand this, and I'm glad I don't.

I know many disagree with this and probably will think that I'm a jerk, but it's my very honest opinion.

[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[morphgfx]

exactly Joachim.
a painting can be way more "real" -and not only that- than any photograph!
look at Craig Mullin's paintings for example (i have chosen him, because i suppose nearly everybody here knows his work...). his work is realistic but its not looking like photographs. photographs are very limited compared to what you can achieve in a painting.

when you want to have a picture like this guy is painting... why not just take a photo?

-morphgfx

[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: morphgfx ]

[Rinaldo]

AHAHAHA......^_^ that was well said Joachim, lol.

[Lunatique]

I have to agree that the technical skill required to do this IS minimum. That is, judging by the standard of professional illustration. ANY pro illustrator worth his fee should be able to render something like that if required.

All it takes is:

1)Match the colors
2)block in the shapes
3)add colors and blend very carefully.

If you have a steady hand, sharp eye for detail, and lots of patience, you can do it.

Hell, for those who thinks they can't, sit down for one afternoon and just pick a typical photo similar to what that guys does, and try it yourself. Of course, you should only attempt this if you've already got your basics down. If you are still struggling with every aspect of drawing/painting constantly, you shouldn't try this.

[ceenda]

Joachim: You hit the nail right on the head.

[Freddio]

True Joachim...

although many of you have not studied art yourselves and seem to be rather ignorant.

Photorealism is a movement which began in the late 1960's, in which scenes are painted in a style closely resembling photographs. The subject matter is usually mundane and without particular interest; the true subject of a photorealist work is the way we unconsciously interpret photographs and paintings in order to create a mental image of the object represented.

I find the composition facintating in this artists work.

The colours are aranged through the tringulation practice, which many of you forget or dont even know about. Your eyes are not static, they are enclined to jump around the painting. There are no dead voids. The use of primary colours in his work is truely amazing. I can tell this artist has recieved formal training.


I find it amusing that many of you think you can judge what is and isnt art, photographs can't be art, image manips can't be art, totall photorapes in photoshop can't be art.


Your definition of art is, Its must be a painting contrieved soley from someone imagination and it has to look cool..

Craig I have been painting with traditional mediums over the last few months.. They are really a lot of fun to work with. Im especially enjoying painting with oils. Now digitally I can slavishly copy a photograph and come up with something farely photrealistic. With traditional mediums, nowhere near as easy.

And if The technical skill required to accomplish this is minimal id like to see a few of your oil paintings which you can just whip up in under half an hour and post em here.


From your replies it seems that you are condeming great artists such as,

Chuck Close
Richard Estes
John Kacere
John Baeder
Don Eddy
Idelle Weber

quote

Quote:

I'm not impressed at all. This is somehting I've mentioned before, as always, I don't understand why so many think that what to strive for as an artist is to get something as real as poosible no matter what cost

Im sorry Joachim but that comment really annoys me and expresses your ignorance

this artist is making a statement, not trying to say look at how good I can paint look at me as you concieve.

I feel like you all assume you know everything about art and art history yet many of you have not even studied art and are soley self taught.



anyway yea

-Freddio

[ June 24, 2001: Message edited by: Freddio ]

[Freddio]

[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: Freddio ]

[Bishop_Six]

Joachim: Exactly right.

[gowansy]

I dont like pictures of toys like that.........they give me the creeps, just like porcelin dolls and clowns

Anywayz, his images are v. good

[Joachim]

hurhm, erase.


I thought you wrote all those comments for me, about photo not being art, etc. That's not how I feel.
But, I don't think you should generalize my personal comments about this this type of stuff. To say that I don't respect work like chuck close, etc, because of my statement, then I think you've either not understood what I said or you haven't read closely enough. chuck close for instance, is a totally different ball park than this, in my opinion. He does something "more" and his style is recognizeable.
But, anyway, I stand by my opinion, it's a personal one, not something I say because I think I have a greater artistic knowledge or education or anything. And, if you don't agree that I'm allowed to speak my point of view because I don't have the proper education or whatever you demand, then I'm sorry. But, honestly, you don't really know what background or study I have (or other here for that matter). people here don't know eachother much, just by writing, so be careful with your accusations

[ June 24, 2001: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[Freddio]

ok

no those comments weren't directed at you..


I respect your opinion ..

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Freddio ]

[worthless_meat_sack]

Freddio, your points are all very well taken. He is definitely a serious artist, and I am very well acquainted with photorealism.

2 points-

1)Technical skill has nothing to do with aesthetic value

2)So if this is true, my saying that this work is not technically demanding means that I am making no claim to it’s value as art.

So please understand that I am NOT trashing him as an artist if I make my case that what he does is technically simple. I see sign painters doing this stuff with one eye closed. I have seen my own illustrations projected onto big walls and filled in, one pixel at a time, but with oil paint. There is a class for trans majors at art center where everyone does one. They all look pretty good. And these are beginning artists doing it. It is mechanical. Please try it yourself. Project an image on a board, trace it and paint by number. Actually the mechanical aspects of the process were a big part of Close’s work.

I am not going to produce a photorealist canvas to prove that it is easy. I am not by nature a braggart, but trust me when I say that it is well within my and your technical abilities to do this. It is actually a good exercise to increase control.

What I meant is that the aesthetic of these images are really bound to “bad” photography, not really naturalism. As I said, this is intentional. I do believe that this artist is working in the idiom created 40 years ago, and doing it well.

My main point in posting what I did was to clear up the misunderstanding. That I felt some had that implied it was “great artwork cause it looks so real.” I wanted to point out that this genre of art does not look real (to me) and because it mimics a photo so well does not mean it is good art. The only thing that can be objectively said about it is “it looks like a photo.” I believe you made the point yourself about to stupidity of anyone claiming to know what art is.

So these are what I think are misconceptions that I wanted to clear up by my earlier post:

1) this work is the pinnacle of technical achievement, and

2) this being so, it becomes Great Art

Both ideas I feel are wrong, IMHO.


If the compositions or color use in these paintings appeal to you, this is great, as these aspects are as difficult to quantify as art in general. You cannot make an objective case for or against them.

[marky]

This is the first time I've ever looked at this forum!

I can honestly say this is one of the most intelligent forum discussions I've seen.
I think you are both not as far from each other as you think.

In the end it comes down to whether you like the work or not - thats a "gut" reaction and its a subjective one.

Personally I don't much like it (probably because of his choice of subject matter) but it is just my opinion!