No announcement yet.

Hyperrealistic Art by Paul Cadden

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MikeHun View Post
    You are wrong on that point my friend.

    Sorry I disagree Alla prima is limited to the duration of the drying time,
    with oils you have some leeway, less so with thinner layers.

    Watercolours are excruciatingly more demanding there is no safety net here my friend.

    Dude, you are speaking as if I have no experience here.

    I have worked in each of the techniques described THOROUGHLY.

    There is always a safety net. Always room for error.
    Watercolor less so, but with good paper and a sharp knife--the safety net is there.
    Keep Saturn in Saturnalia.


    • Originally posted by seamas View Post
      There is always a safety net. Always room for error.
      Watercolor less so, but with good paper and a sharp knife--the safety net is there.
      According to some in the "English technique school " using a knife to expose paper as highlights is not a pure "watercolour".
      "After all is said and done, more is said than done."


      • I can't wait to read through this whole thread.

        I teach art and one of the areas I excel in is teaching drawing. On more than one occasion, I have taught students to draw to nearly this level (three of them in 9th grade, two were seniors) and technical skills are challenging. So to begin with these are rendered beautifully. That's exactly what my students have too...a beautiful rendition.

        However, that does not make them artists.

        I believe I could learn to play a musical instrument quite well, but does it make me a musician? Maybe, maybe not.


        • Ergo my point... You buy a camera and you press a button to make a photon transfer, this entitles you to call it Art? Not by a long shot, at least the students have eye-hand co-ordination to put image to paper, human talent simple as that.
          Last edited by MikeHun; 06-03-2012, 03:03 PM.
          "After all is said and done, more is said than done."


          • Mike,
            Let me send you an easel, some brushes, some paint, and a ticket to the Grand Canyon. There, I expect you to transfer some photons to a canvas (after all, that's all you are seeing are reflected photons) and create me some art.
            Oh, wait, nevermind, because all you would be doing is using some mechanical contraptions to convert photons to "art" (ie your hands, brushes, paint, etc.).
            Let's be real here. Are writers artists, after all, all they do is craft languages with a pencil and paper. Are actors artists, after all, all they do is translate someone's story into something interesting.
            Face it, there is art involved any time you bring your own vision, creativity, and talent to the table.
            Take it or leave it.
            My two cents.
            What others think of you is none of your business


            • Some, but not all, parallelograms are squares.
              Some, but not all, photographers are artists.

              Belonging in the former categories neither guarantees nor precludes being in the latter.

              As artists go, I'm a square, daddi-o.


              • Originally posted by Tea View Post
                However, that does not make them artists.
                Again, that depends on one's definition of "art" and "artists." To me, anyone attempting to create "art" is an "artist." It doesn't necessarily make them good artists who produce good art, but that's a separate subjective and qualitative issue.

                To both you and Mike, it seems that "art" and "artist" are categories that require meeting certain minimum standards that are set by, well, you and Mike.

                It sort of brings up the question of at what point do non-artists who draw non-art cross that mysterious graduation line to being real artists who produce real artwork. We can all have our own standards, but arguing over them seems a bit silly since they're really just arguments over personal definitions of words and arbitrary categorizations.


                • Originally posted by <b> View Post

                  To both you and Mike, it seems that "art" and "artist" are categories that require meeting certain minimum standards that are set by, well, you and Mike.
                  Oh's settled then!

                  just kidding. don't get tangled up in the underwear <b> because I very much respect a lot of what you have to say, but I will openly take a stance here.

                  I teach art and have been for quite a while and I am also an artist. I have personally struggled with wtf all that means in terms of being an artist - is there a definition? who qualifies, do I qualify and what right do I have to call myself one. I didn't say the above without knowing that I feel very strongly about that either. I'll give you a prime example: a friend/acquaintance paints really wonderful and beautiful portraits. The colors are stunning and you are totally drawn in and they engage you. She sells enough to rent studio space and contribute to the family earnings. However, she finds images in magazines and paints exactly in the style of a well known artist, to the point you barely can tell the difference. When I discovered this (quite by accident) I felt a bit betrayed and quite embarrassed that I gloated so highly on her work, because she came to me with her first painting and asked my opinion. I was very impressed and encouraged her to continue on. Later, she told me she really liked the works of the artist and when I looked them up...I was stunned. This is where I am talking someone can paint /draw with technical abilities like no tomorrow, but at the same time she has not grown. She's mass produced the same work over and over and none of it's really her own thought or idea. An artist will bring something new to the table. They will constantly explore, react to their world, albeit great or small, all while advancing their skills too.

                  It wasn't until the last few years (I'm 54) that I recognized the difference between those with very good technical skills and the realm I am referencing. Call it like you want, I'll stand behind my statement until my dying day. I don't know if I expect you to understand where I'm coming from, because what I create isn't necessarily within my control nor do I need to control it anymore. I did at one time and I did want to master some of the skills as drawings shown at the beginning of this thread. But instead, I've relinquished that control to a power/big guy above/energy and work from that standpoint. Again, I don't expect an understanding because it's difficult for me to explain even.

                  Does that make sense?

                  Don't want to ruffle feathers here, just my perspective.


                  • Originally posted by Tea View Post

                    Don't want to ruffle feathers here, just my perspective.
                    I wouldn't worry about it, at this point, you could spend weeks picking feathers, fur and hair out of the corners of this thread.
                    People will believe anything, which means I will believe anythingI want to start believing in things that have shapeliness and harmony.
                    -Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.


                    • Originally posted by Nobert View Post
                      I wouldn't worry about it, at this point, you could spend weeks picking feathers, fur and hair out of the corners of this thread.
                      I bet (and truth be told, I didn't read the entire thing).


                      • Meffy (and everyone else),
                        I was afraid that it would look like I was taking up for photography as art. Really, I am not. I do have a background in photography. I do not have a background in art, I am sooo still learning.
                        To say that nothing that is created with any tools other than your eyes, your hands, some paper, and some colored stuff does not qualify something as art, and furthermore does not disqualify photography, or any other discipline. Art comes from the soul. It's a way of moving people. It's emotional. It's human, and it's very subjective based on the audience at any one given point in time (at least that's my thought).
                        Was Picasso an artist? Yup. Do I get all his stuff, does it move me, do I have an emotional reaction to it? A lot of times, nope. Does that mean I'm gonna say he would have been better off with a camera, or a hammer and a chisel and a hunk of granite than he would have been with all that blue paint? Nope. Just 'cause I don't really like it don't mean it ain't art.
                        Tea, I really do not disagree with what you just said, and in fact I do understand it, just from a different point of view and a different discipline. Ruffled feathers often times is what art is about, me-thinks. I'm assuming here, but I don't see where Mike get's that, unless this was a piece of art of his own, because he certainly did stir some emotions .
                        Back to topic, Kittie, thanks for posting this, not for the opinions that it brought out, but just because it was some unbelievably good work. Art, yeah, I'd call it that .
                        What others think of you is none of your business


                        • Originally posted by Nobert View Post
                          I wouldn't worry about it, at this point, you could spend weeks picking feathers, fur and hair out of the corners of this thread.
                          Sorry about the fur. In warm weather I shed rather a lot. Some of the feathers might belong to one of my other avatars.

                          *sweeps up loose debris into a heap in center of thread*

                          *puts up sign: "ceci n'est pas de l'art" *


                          • If you can use your skill to make a medium look as realistic as a photo that shows talent and skill. You can't teach a person to draw this well in pencil unless they have artistic talent. Picasso started out with realism and got bored with it. It's all artistic expression. You don't have to do realism to be an "artist".


                            • So an artist who can emulate the style of another artist, isn't an artist?
                              They have to take it one step beyond to be called an artist?
                              What does it mean to take it that one more step and 'personalize' the art they are creating? Maybe they are, they've been shown a way to express their personal artistic style.

                              I always used to argue in Modern art class that a lot of that stuff wasn't art. It was just someone thinking of it first and calling it art. Painting a white square on an offwhite canvas and calling it art? Ok. You got firsties. Same for Duchamp and his urinal.

                              There is some photography I'd call art. Some of it is in the process, like when doing the old dye transfer. Some of it is in recognizing a truly moving scene and photographing it, such as the early work of Ansel Adams. And some of it is just plain luck. Lucky to be in the right place at the right time and holding a camera. A lot of the world's most iconic photographs are just that. A lucky shot.

                              My own opinion on these pencil drawings is coming from the illustrator side of me. Sure, technically they are great. But, the time needed to create them negates them being anything but fine art as the time involved is greater than the return that could be gained commercially. It's like those hyperdetailed Illustrator illustrations you see that took thousands of hours. You can't sell that commercially. But you can sell it as fine art.


                              • Originally posted by Tea View Post
                                don't get tangled up in the underwear <b> because I very much respect a lot of what you have to say, but I will openly take a stance here.
                                I'm not too worried about that. One of the reasons I post here is for the good, substantive discussions that I get to have with peers whose various opinions I respect.

                                My point of view on this (which is only my frame of reference and not a matter of right or wrong) is purely semantic and has nothing to do with the quality of the art (or art-like creation) or the talent and ability of the artist (or artist-wannabe), so let me come at it from a slightly different direction...
                                • A person driving an automobile, no matter how well, is a driver.
                                • A person on a golf course swinging at a ball, no matter how well, is a golfer.
                                • A person moving to music on a dance floor, no matter how well, is a dancer.
                                • A person learning to read, no matter how well, is a reader.
                                • A person who sleeps, no matter how well, is a sleeper.
                                • A person in a pool, propelling himself with his or her arms and legs, no matter how well, is a swimmer.
                                • Therefore, using the same logic, a person creating art, no matter how well, is an artist.

                                The use of these nouns as labels aren't dependent upon ability, talent, tests, ability, diplomas or experience they're assigned simply as a result of someone participating in the activity.

                                On the other hand, not everyone giving legal advice is an attorney; and not everyone administering hypodermic injections is a physician; nor is everyone who prepares people's taxes a CPA. This is because the application of these nouns as labels depends upon an agreed-upon standard having been met (diplomas, bar exams, etc.).

                                After reading through your post, I agree with your observations about students, talent, ability, etc. I've seen the same things myself. But our common observations are irrelevant to the argument that I'm making about this whole thread mostly being about differences in semantic designations.

                                The lady across the street from me paints these awful acrylic paintings of flowers. Quite honestly, I think they're terrible both technically and aesthetically. Still, despite her talent and ability deficit, I still consider her an artist simply because she tries to produce artwork. I don't consider her a talented artist, but she's still an artist using my definition. In other words, the noun still applies, but I differentiate what kind of an artist she is with an adjective as in she's a less-than-talented artist.

                                I mostly just have broader definitions of what constitutes art and artists, and these definitions don't involve quality and ability judgments. But that's just me and results mostly, I suppose, from the definitions that were used years ago in my art school.

                                You and others in this thread have different definitions of these same things, and that's just fine. You might see the same things I do, respond to them the same way I do and we might completely share each other's viewpoints, but you still might use different terms to describe those things than I would. I might ride the elevator up to my friend's apartment, but my cousin in England would ride the lift up to his friend's flat. Same thing, just different descriptors.

                                So back to the thread in general... To me who is and isn't an artist or what is and isn't art, are just meaningless debates over whether or not it's tomato or tomahto, or asphalt or macadam, or whether it's a creek or a stream or a brook. Different people might have common observations and reactions, yet disagree on the proper way to label those things. My point is that there is no proper terminology and that it doesn't really matter as long as we understand each other's labeling and categorization terminology.

                                To sum it up, you and I might see the same awful drawings from the same talentless student and we'd both look at each other and think exactly the same thing. However, my broader definition of the word artist would still apply to this person, but your narrower definition might exclude her. Neither of us are right or wrong, it's just a different usage of the same word.






                                Incredible Stock

                                Latest Topics


                                • HotButton
                                  Reply to Logo collection critique
                                  Uh, okay. If "leave because it's hard out there" is what you got from my post, you might need more than "some tips."

                                  In fact, I gave you the tips. To reiterate, if the...
                                  Yesterday, 11:05 PM
                                • EMEUTIER
                                  Path problem when trying to colour wreath.
                                  I recently made a Wreath in illustrator using the tutorial found here:
                                  Unfortunately when i get to the part where i change the...
                                  Yesterday, 08:55 PM
                                • ellisgraphics
                                  Help me?
                                  I've got a client that designed his own logo and simply wanted me to put it together. He only drew the outline and told me what colors to use. But I'm not sure if I can send this to him. Should I tell...
                                  Yesterday, 07:17 PM
                                • exaus
                                  Comment on Logo collection critique
                                  Thanks for your feedback!
                                  I understand what you are saying. I just think i might be a monomaniac. I have no interest in building in other forms of graphic design. I will probably have a bad time....
                                  Yesterday, 04:59 PM
                                • toweln
                                  Book cover critique for a total beginner
                                  Hi, I'm very new to design and just starting out, so I'd appreciate some critique/advice/guidance on some book covers I made for a friend, and how I can improve as a designer.

                                  Yesterday, 04:58 PM
                                GDF A division of Mediabistro Holdings Adweek | Mediabistro | Clio | Film Expo Group Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy Copyright 2016 Mediabistro Holdings