Artists this good make me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry...

[sm4him]

:shock:...

:scratch: ...

:crazy:

And I thought my head hurt BEFORE I read this thread.

 

[Photographiend]

Here is an original piece from this artist. To solve the issue of can he come up with something original.

Dragon Head - Ballpoint Pen by =VianaArts on deviantART

and another

VianaArts's deviantART Gallery

And that directly proves my point. His hyper-realism is lost when he is not duplicating a photo.

How a person learns to draw in the first place is by duplicating what they see. True he may pull off far more stunning images when he works from a photograph. But that is not to say the quality of his original pieces don't improve over time by honing his skills through the practice of replication.

 

[MLeeK]

WOW. I am good with charcoals, but WOW. I NEED my erasers! LOL!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Here is an original piece from this artist. To solve the issue of can he come up with something original.

Dragon Head - Ballpoint Pen by =VianaArts on deviantART

and another

VianaArts's deviantART Gallery

And that directly proves my point. His hyper-realism is lost when he is not duplicating a photo.

How a person learns to draw in the first place is by duplicating what they see. True he may pull off far more stunning images when he works from a photograph. But that is not to say the quality of his original pieces don't improve over time by honing his skills through the practice of replication.

Yes, absolutely. There is still a big difference in drawing what you actually see (drawing from real life forms), and drawing what you see in a photograph. The photograph is already translated to 2 dimmensions, and is much easier to wrap your brain around, than drawing from real life subjects, and even harder to draw from memory, and knowledge of how things are supposed to be.

Again, it's so much easier to reproduce a hyper real drawing from a photo, than it is to do from memory.

Drawing exactly from a photo is duplication.
Drawing from real life objects is translation.
Drawing from memory and knowledge, is creation.

 

[Derrel]

Reminds me of a joke I made a long,long,long time ago, when I was a teenager.

"Sure he's autistic. But can he DRAW?"

 

[Photographiend]

Wow. I am seriously slow. I have been in this thread 3 different times and I only just understood that joke. *facepalm*

 

[Photographiend]

WOW. I am good with charcoals, but WOW. I NEED my erasers! LOL!

I dunno if you were talking about my work or his. But if it was mine than thanks :mrgreen:

Makes me want to go bust out my art stuff. I have been learning Manga and I have been thinking about doing some flower portraits from some of my photos but utilizing the techniques I picked up from the Manga. Never realized how many steps were involved. Gives me a whole new respect for people who make Manga Books. Must take years.

That raises another question.

Bitter Jeweler - I am really not trying to be a pain in the ass. I actually like the way you have it defined. Kind of reinforces my idea that what I do is just "Glorified Copy Right Infringement". This is why I have never tried to sell anything I have done. Just give it away for Christmas. People keep telling me I should try selling my stuff but I don't want to find out the hard way that it is illegal. Which I am pretty sure it is. There are actually museums that will not allow people to sketch in them regarding it as "Copy Right Infringement".

However, if I work from my own photos and I try to translate the image into a style, like Manga, is that creation?

I dunno. I think yes, Copying from someone else's pictures is most definitely duplication. However, from your own? Planning the shot so you can translate it into another medium seems to be a valid art form. No? At that point they are responsible for every element in the composition.

rexbobcat - would love to see some of the work you referenced earlier in the thread.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Copying exactly, hyper realistically, any image, is duplication.

Taking any image any using it to create a work of another style, I would consider that to be translation, or a work based on another used for reference.

Don't get yourself tied in a knot over it.

What this guy does is amazing. No doubt about it. Just some of us don't regard it as really original art.
When I first saw this elsewhere, I was amazed! Then, when I saw the photo it was based on, hair for hair, I was just a little let down.
No biggie. Major props for his illustration!

 

[DiskoJoe]

@ op: so there is someone better then you out there? Get used to it kid. This is why people continue to practice.

 

[Photographiend]

It's not that. There are always people out there who are better. Just some people are born with a capacity for greatness that most people can only aspire to achieve in their lifetimes. Look at Einstein. No amount of practice creates Einstein. You can develop your understanding to comprehend what he taught but not the ability to imagine, that bore all his theories and discoveries.

I would say most of society has a capacity to learn and replicate what they are taught. But very few actually live outside that box and have an ability to see beyond what is taught. They are the ones who make discoveries.

This man will likely just be a pioneer in a new art media. I seem to remember reading on one of his pieces that he was going to be doing tutorials for how to do what he does.

When I was browsing through his work there was this one piece he did. Probably the one I would feel most compelled to own purely because it was the piece he did when he figured out how to crosshatch his pens without leaving noticeable lines. It isn't his best piece but from my perspective it is like his equivalent of e=mc...*not sure where the squared symbol is on here*