Thread: Hyper-realistic drawings

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It might not be as surreal and creative as salvador dali's work but that doesn't mean it's boring.

Then please answer this question, what is interesting about it? What do you like in the two drawings already posted. Explain.

I must say Marvo, I think you're the only person that is bored by Paul Cadden's art.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Then please answer this question, what is interesting about it? What do you like in the two drawings already posted. Explain.

I like the thoughts that they give me, just like any other form of art. That's what is so fascinating about art. A group of people can sit around at a piece of art for hours, just thinking. That's exactly what he does. Perhaps it's the photograph behind the art that makes me think, but the thought that he hand-drew those blows my mind. It makes it all the more grandiose.

I have no problem with anybody admiring the skill and patience it takes to do this - but calling it art is just going too far, isn't it? If making an exact copy of something is art, then every photocopier is an artist (I mean the machines, not just people who copy photos). Is tracing something art?

I suppose there is some level of creativity in what photorealists do, but it's very minimal - consisting mostly of finding photographs they want to copy laboriously. But all the real choices were already made by the photographer. When you work from reference it's supposed to be about translating it, making a statement from it - not just copying exactly what you see. If something that exactly duplicates something else is art, then every mass-produced toaster is a masterpiece.

I suppose there's some creed behind what these guys do - they're commenting on the banality of contemporary life or something - yawn.

I blame Holywood - they've been cranking out copies with absolutely no originality for so long that people have started to think that's what art is.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I have no problem with anybody admiring the skill and patience it takes to do this - but calling it art is just going too far, isn't it? If making an exact copy of something is art, then every photocopier is an artist (I mean the machines, not just people who copy photos). Is tracing something art?

I suppose there is some level of creativity in what photorealists do, but it's very minimal - consisting mostly of finding photographs they want to copy laboriously. But all the real choices were already made by the photographer. When you work from reference it's supposed to be about translating it, making a statement from it - not just copying exactly what you see. If something that exactly duplicates something else is art, then every mass-produced toaster is a masterpiece.

I suppose there's some creed behind what these guys do - they're commenting on the banality of contemporary life or something - yawn.

I blame Holywood - they've been cranking out copies with absolutely no originality for so long that people have started to think that's what art is.

This is pretty much the point I've been trying to make. I feel it's dangerous to say something is not art, because everything can be art, but what I've been trying to say this entire thread, is that most people will find the technical side of things fascinating, which is understandable, but if you think about it, these drawings have no real artistic merit, they're just examples of good craftsmanship.

A while back a group of spraypainters did a painting of a woman and it was photorealistic down to very minute skin details. And again, while technically impressive, and probably a lot more challenging than what this person has done, since it was also in colour, it was boring. Luckily for them, there's a market in spraypainting cars.
You are an idiot if you are going to pay thousands of dollars for a photorealistic hand drawn copy of a photo.

Originally Posted by Lahzo

Andrew Hussie taking a shower?

Originally Posted by Marvo

But if you think about it, these drawings have no real artistic merit, they're just examples of good craftsmanship.

Saying they are good examples of craftsmanship, but then declaring these have no "real" artistic merit...

If craftsmanship (based on the core definition)involves skilled work, it must mean application of skill, competence etc, is devoted to making it useful and functional objects, be it on paper or through sculptures. But if these are really good examples of craftsmanship( meaning these are epitomes of the core definition of craftsmanship), then how do these photos prove to be useful and functional purposes? As technology grows, so is the gap between craftsmanship and works of art, art deserving of merit are closing in to being fused together.

So by stemming from artistic merit, isn't the art itself (whether through imagination or copying from a reference photo) a form of craftsmanship? (things done by hand for example). Splitting art and craftsmanship, when obviously the latter is required to form some aspect of art...because both arts from imagination and copying something from a photo still requires the application of skill, competence, etc....it cannot be broken apart.

So if it doesn't have artistic merit, you are holding true to old traditional beliefs of the difference between crafts (from craftsmanship) as being useful and applicable to daily life, compared to just art (which was not useful at all except for aesthetic and cosmetic value).

So by that old definition of craftsmanship, art that is deserving of merit is not considered an aspect of craftsmanship? So these drawings only stop at the fundamentals of craftsmanship and just that? So this isn't the drawer extending beyond the use of tools through use of intellect?

Craftsmanship cannot be nitpicked and then broken into something else without considering some artistic value in it, especially since old ideals have been drastically changed.

So by that standard, that means all arts deserving of merit are not examples of good craftsmanship?

Doesn't make sense at all. Art deserving of merit are aspects of craftsmanship either way.

It's like you're saying arts deserving of merit aren't necessarily good examples of craftsmanship...see where this is going?

Again, with modern times and advancement of technology, the old standards that made a huge gap between craftsmanship and art are going to close in.

Artists will be more concerned of these aspects of "craftsmanship" to express their artistic perspective.

If you tell a person what settings to use and when/where to point a camera, they can take a very nice photograph. Often times this is true without telling them any of that since the camera can do a lot of the work. However, give a person a photograph and a pencil and tell them to draw the photograph, it's not going to happen/look really bad. When a real artist draws something, even a photograph or a copy of something, they give it some soul. No matter how much they try to make it look like the original, it won't. There will be little imperfections and little bits of the artist in the drawing. These imperfections are what make it art.

Is it the most original form of art? No. Is it still art? Yes, yes it is.

Originally Posted by Marvo

A lot of people here seem to be missing my point.

That's because it's kind of a ridiculous point (IMO).

You are trying to degrade the work simply because it's a human doing something a machine can already do. You think there is no 'value' to it, because it doesn't 'improve-upon' anything. The image itself is not 'fresh'. It's not an image that 'only that person can create', because it was already created by a camera.

I think most of us get it.

I also think it's going out of your way to refuse to understand why people are both impressed and fascinated by it. It's the level of skill it takes to do something like that. Yes, it's the drawing, because it's a drawing that was done by a human, to such an amazing level of detail that it, in itself, speaks volumes about what humans are capable of drawing. Certainly the image is not unique (although, in the way you're using it, I think it's better to say the "subject" is not unique), because it's a copy of the photograph, but the technique is remarkable. Technique, in itself, has artistic merit.

You are speaking of a photograph as if it takes the same level of skill/artistry to create as a hyper-real, hand-drawn portrait.

Technically everybody is commenting (including me) on a 2D computer 'representation' of Paul Cadden's work; not the 'actual' thing!
For example, right click on 'Properties'...

How can a 640 x 844 pixel PSP image with it's inherent errors do this work justice?

It's like the Woodstock 1969 thing all over again - You simply would have to be there!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

That's because it's kind of a ridiculous point (IMO).

You are trying to degrade the work simply because it's a human doing something a machine can already do. You think there is no 'value' to it, because it doesn't 'improve-upon' anything. The image itself is not 'fresh'. It's not an image that 'only that person can create', because it was already created by a camera.

I think most of us get it.

I also think it's going out of your way to refuse to understand why people are both impressed and fascinated by it. It's the level of skill it takes to do something like that. Yes, it's the drawing, because it's a drawing that was done by a human, to such an amazing level of detail that it, in itself, speaks volumes about what humans are capable of drawing. Certainly the image is not unique (although, in the way you're using it, I think it's better to say the "subject" is not unique), because it's a copy of the photograph, but the technique is remarkable. Technique, in itself, has artistic merit.

You are speaking of a photograph as if it takes the same level of skill/artistry to create as a hyper-real, hand-drawn portrait.

Disclaimer -
Before I launch into this - O and Link - I know you guys are currently engaged in working extensively from photographs - which trust me is something I did for many many years, and is absolutely essential and invaluable in terms of learning. I probably learned half of what I know that way - maybe more than I'm even aware of. And I'm also not saying that working from photography has no place in producing art - it absolutely DOES! I am NOT one of those purists who think that using photoreference is cheating - that's ridiculous, and many great artists and illustrators who's work I admire do it all the time. I'm essentially just saying there's a big dfference between 'working from" a photograph and directly copying one without making any choices yourself.

As a technical exercise of course that drawing is a monumental achievement of uncanny skill - nobody would deny that. And of course, not being able to see the original photograph we don't know how laboriously it was copied or if maybe there have been some changes made. But if you're a judge in an art competition part of your criteria is originality/creativity. The very word artwork includes Art (inspiration/creativity) and Work (technical ability). We don't accord as much value to a paint-by-numbers kit, no matter how well executed, as to a Rembrandt, even though Rembrandt obviously looked directly as his model and drew out exaclty what he saw more or less. And that's largely because in a paint-by-numbers kit most of the truly artistic choices have already been made, and by someone other than the painter himself.

Beginning from the choice of what to draw or paint. Of course in this case the artist did select a photograph he wanted to copy. And that's really what this is - it's not a drawing of a man using photoreference, it's actually a drawing of a photograph.

Choices an artist makes include selecting a model ( for simplicity's sake I'll stick to portrait type work featuring the head and face, like these drawings), working out the pose and expression, placing lights, positioning the camera and choosing background elements or props etc - even the framing (how much space is visible around the model, is the framing rectangle vertical or horizontal, etc). All of this is integral to the statement the artist wants to make. For an artist working from an existing photograph of course, all of these choices have already been made - except in the case of an artist who hires a model and takes his own photographs with the idea of using them as reference for the finished work.

Then of course the artist can choose to selectively change elements from the photograph, or to montage together various photographs, to make subtle or extreme changes in pose, hairstyle, clothing, proportioning. All of this is demonstrated in the example below by Gil Elvgren:



This is what I would call "working from a photograph" (as opposed to directly and slavishly copying a photograph). It requires knowledge in every area of picture-making - composition, understanding of anatomy and proportioning, rendering etc. It also clearly shows the hand and mind of the artist making creative choices. And even though Elvgren worked in color, he always took black and white photographs because it simplifies shapes and tone and then he wasn't influenced in color choices by the photograph.

Also, one very important thing that an artist should be able to do when working from a photograph is to clarify confusing areas. Sometimes a photograph has weird clumps of shadow or color that make no real sense. It takes an understanding of anatomy and structure and of 3 dimensional rendering skills to be able to create information that's readable and convincing in place of the weird splotches you sometimes see in a photo.

I spent the better part of the 80's drawing from photographs - sometimes merely as exercises trying to copy exactly what I see, sometimes modifying it to varying levels, but in between I was also drawing entirely from imagination. At that time my 'from imagination' drawings were really weak and I didn't realize it. Eventually I understood it was because copying photographs had made me very good at shading and texture and pattern etc, but I knew very little about STRUCTURE... about anatomy and proportioning, composition and related things. So I completely stopped working from photographs for years, bought a bunch of books on artistic anatomy and composition, and worked nearly every day on teaching myself those skills. Again, it took years to get anywhere - but eventually I found that I could merge the two different kinds of skills - when I was becoming competent at creating decent compositions and structuring the human body and other things in a convincing and appealing way, I was able to apply my hard-learned shading and texturing skills over top of it and create drawings that were much more satisfying.

Finally let me say this - everything I just said above is directed toward a classical type of art where realistic or somewhat stylized depiction of reality is the point. Most people wouldn't conside the Gil Elvgren piece I posted to be Art (with a capital A), but 'merely' illustration. Personally I'm not so concerned with that kind of thing - whether an artist is making a Statement that's Important etc... but I do like to see both technical skill and creativity at work.

I believe these hyperrealistic drawings are a different kind of animal altogether. I suspect they're some sort of postmodern statement about the dearth of creativity in today's media and society, and I think the whole point of them is to spark discussions exactly like the one we're having. In that repsect of course, they're working brilliantly!!

Excellent post Darkmatters, a lot of interesting insight.

And I will concede, if Paul Cadden's idea was to spark a discussion about what art is, then he has accomplished that. However, as is with all art or work that tries to make statements, they only make sense in the context of what they are commenting on. If everyone here was just praising this man for his talent, then the discussion would never have been sparked. In my attempt to make people see past technical skill and actually analyse artistic finesse, we started a much more interesting discussion, and that's art on a whole different level.

So thanks to Paul for making our forum a little more interesting.

He's still a shit artist though.

Well-said, DM.

All that said, I finally googled Paul Cadden's site (he did one or both of the images on this thread) and I must say I'm beginning to reconsider. Apparently he and the other Hyperrealists do montage different photos together and also extrapolate to fill in detail that isn't there in the original images. Here's the site:

http://paulcadden.com/index.php?opti...d=53&Itemid=54

He does more than just closeup faces - there are massive street scenes filled with hundreds of people. I still don't care much for the work though - it all leaves me pretty flat, I think mostly because of the cold documentarylike feel - it resembles snapshots filled to overflowing ith immense detail, but doesn't seem to differenciate - everything is presented with mechanical alacrity as if every speck of dirt is as important as everything else.

I'm sure if you're standing in a gallery before one of these things and it's ten feet tall, it's overpowering and overwhelming.

I guess I have to concede that what he and the other Hyperrealists do is creative to some degree. I'm trying to imagine how you do a drawing that's so big - you must need to use a scaffold and keep the majority of the paper covered except for the area you're currently working on. There's no spontanaity involved - every detail would have to be worked out in excruciating explicitness.

Personally I greatly prefer work that's more stylized and that doesn't just obsessively present every fucking detail with the cold detachment and literal truthfulness of a camera lens. After reading about the aims and techniques these artists use, I guess I can't really make the case anymore that it's not art - but I can say that it leaves me pretty cold. I guess I like art that's more dramatic and less 'newspaper'.

Lol sorry Marvo.. I deserted the ranks!

** Edit **

A few minutes after writing that I'm swigning back to my original stance. I just realized - the changes they make in the photographs they use are little different from photochopping. I don't know - overall this stuff leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's the absolutely literal way they present the work that turns me off. I think I really prefer work that's stylized to make things look better rather than presenting bland reality in all its grotesqueness.

I really don't know what to say. Yes, he has talent, but he is wasting it on mediocre/bad photos. Of course, he can choose to do whatever he wants, and he's apparently making a lot of money, but his work is still wholly uninteresting and boring.