What do you think? [Archive] - Artist Forum

: What do you think?


Jonah
01-29-2017, 06:08 AM
Walter White, Mark Knopfler, Pablo Escobar,Bonnie

picassolite
01-30-2017, 12:00 AM
At the risk of patting you on the back too heavily - these portraits tell me ...
you have a real future as a portrait painter - if you should go down that road.

One key you have mastered is the concept of setting the eyes 'back' in the head;
which allows the eyes to become the centerpiece of the images.

Should you pursue portraiture for compensation ... your demonstrated ability is - money in the bank.

That is my humble opinion.

Jonah
01-30-2017, 03:09 AM
Thank you. That means so much. Had an accident recently so had plenty of time on my hands. I went back to my first love...drawing,and explored the concept of 'Hyper-realism'. Sorry my camera phone doesn't do them justice!
I'll post some more when I get chance.

Jonah
01-30-2017, 03:54 AM
Frank. Sir Bradley Wiggins.Lauren Bacall

abt2k15
01-30-2017, 05:49 AM
awesome skill. an honest critique would be to push values more on the focal points so it appears more crisp and catches the attention.

for example on the walter white my eyes are drawn to the beard because of the nice contrast. its lacking a bit of those darkest shadows with his wrinkles etc. hard and soft edge control is really good if you manage to guide viewers eyes with values i think the appeal would go through the roof :)

Jonah
01-30-2017, 01:11 PM
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on that.

TatyanaShurtz
02-01-2017, 05:17 PM
Technically, it's superb. But please tell me (and I don't mean to be disrespectful) why copy photographs? Doing so takes half of your credit off. No?

abt2k15
02-02-2017, 03:49 AM
kind of a trend imho.

abt2k15
02-06-2017, 06:14 AM
spamming your url randomly doesnt serve your cause im afraid. if you want to help artists just buy their works.

just
02-06-2017, 06:18 AM
Technically, it's superb. But please tell me (and I don't mean to be disrespectful) why copy photographs? Doing so takes half of your credit off. No?



No, it does not.

TatyanaShurtz
02-06-2017, 02:32 PM
But then any copier is an artist.

just
02-06-2017, 03:30 PM
If the photos were traced, then you would have a valid argument but it doesn't demenish the talent to use a photo for reference.

TatyanaShurtz
02-06-2017, 07:10 PM
Using photos for reference and sheer copying are two different things. Especially if an artist copies photos someone else has taken. Not only it's pointless, but also wrong ethically. IMHO.

just
02-06-2017, 07:47 PM
"Pointless" and "ethically wrong", these are oddly pompous attitudes IMHO.

TatyanaShurtz
02-07-2017, 07:13 AM
"Pointless" and "ethically wrong", these are oddly pompous attitudes IMHO.
:) Sure! And plagiarism is so cozy and non-challenging.

just
02-07-2017, 08:10 AM
And now you're talking about plagiarism. You are being ridiculous. I am done wasting time with illogical discussions.

abt2k15
02-07-2017, 10:08 AM
Using photos for reference and sheer copying are two different things. Especially if an artist copies photos someone else has taken. Not only it's pointless, but also wrong ethically. IMHO.


yes but youre missing an important point. you only look at the image as in its composition and whats in it. this is your sole base of valuing someones work obviously. imho if an artist is able to copy something 1:1 his art is the craft itself. like his art is forever linked to the original creator of the composition ( and some decide to not give credit at all and some just flat out steal and pretend they do it by hand ). to some - it is some kind of the ultimate skill to achieve.

you can also debate if you can claim copyright for a photo in general. since with photos one happy accident will almost finish the whole piece with one push on a button. and this is also true but then a good photograph would argue about how much is involved to get good equipment to location x. how to tell people where you want them to be etc. then i would ask if there is a special technique involved on how to push the button concluding in how it is not and what not ;)

wikipedia quote about art :

Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art.

also i would go a step further into the opposite direction saying the artist who is able to reproduce a photo with a pencil should get much more credit than the photograph him/herself in most of the cases. like with everything there is exceptions but after all - if that isnt art photographic works aint either. like a picture of the eiffel tower. alot of people are selling their pictures of it. did they build it ? no. do they credit the creators? no. did they arrange the scenery? no. so what gives? the pushed a button and nurish off of something famous and no one minds.

i do see where you are coming from since imaginative and hyper-realism requires a much bigger thinking process ( and understanding o/c ) and if people knew more about the dedication required to get past school doodeling level i believe hyper realism wouldnt have the hype it has gotten recently maybe. no one knows. and itll stay that way. 4ever ^^