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

[rexbobcat]

But what about this question...

If someone takes a very "artful" photograph with the intent of copying that scene onto a canvas, and he does just that as photo-realistically as humanly possible, and ten destroys the original photograph...Is the remaining canvas still art?

Especially if his intent starting off was to take a photograph and then use that as an exact reference.

Is a drawing worth more artistically if it is entirely from the artist's mind and not from an external, physical reference?

Didn't one of the greats use camera obscura to draw his landscapes?

Or maybe he uses actual photographs...I can't remember.

Anyways; I don't really consider this guy an artist either. I just thought I'd ask an art related question.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Skills and technical ability are not the same as creativity.

Talent can relate to skills and technical ability or creativity, but it does not unify the two.

As long as you commingle all these terms, we can't have meaningful discussion.

 

[Photographiend]

But what about this question...

If someone takes a very "artful" photograph with the intent of copying that scene onto a canvas, and he does just that as photo-realistically as humanly possible, and ten destroys the original photograph...Is the remaining canvas still art?

Especially if his intent starting off was to take a photograph and then use that as an exact reference.

Is a drawing worth more artistically if it is entirely from the artist's mind and not from an external, physical reference?

Didn't one of the greats use camera obscura to draw his landscapes?

Or maybe he uses actual photographs...I can't remember.

Anyways; I don't really consider this guy an artist either. I just thought I'd ask an art related question.

Haha... That is funny because I have actually been considering doing that exact thing with some of my flower photos. At least I wouldn't have to worry about the copy right.

 

[unpopular]

More than one of the greats used a camera obscura...

Art isn't about the skill involved, that's the craft. Art is the novel experience which results from the art-object. A 1:1 copy of a photograph for the sake of it, and only the sake of it is nothing novel, no matter how much skill was involved in creating it.

 

[rexbobcat]

Skills and technical ability are not the same as creativity.

Talent can relate to skills and technical ability or creativity, but it does not unify the two.

As long as you commingle all these terms, we can't have meaningful discussion.

I'm not. That's a very obvious divide.

But some are saying that copying under most or any circumstances makes the copy somehow not art.

But what if the creator of an artistic photograph transfers the creativity of the photograph to a canvas in a very skillful way?

In the traditional art schooling of several decades past the final year of learning was spent copying the work of the mentor in order to show their technical skills. But even then, I still consider some of those copies art, just like I consider some song covers just as much art as the original.

Creativity can exist in technical forms.

Not that it always does, but it can. Lol

 

[unpopular]

With enough ballpoint pens, one could have a machine do this, and actually do it very easily. While the software and hardware itself might be considered "art", I doubt very much that the images it produces are.

If I print a photograph, does it's reproduction in itself somehow elevate it to something greater than a photograph? If I reproduce someone elses' photograph, is it somehow art?

 

[rexbobcat]

With enough ballpoint pens, one could have a machine do this, and actually do it very easily. While the software and hardware itself might be considered "art", I doubt very much that the images it produces are.

If I print a photograph, does it's reproduction in itself somehow elevate it to something greater than a photograph? If I reproduce someone elses' photograph, is it somehow art?

But if you reproduce your own photograph via ballpoint pen.

The machine point is moot, because modern machines can do any technical artistic thing that humans can do and they can usually do it "better."That concept can be applies to any area; not just drawing.

My grandma paints scenes from photographs, adding her own little flakes and touches. I consider much of what she does as art.

It depends on the extent to which one use a reference I guess. Where do you draw the line?No human creates anything without reference to another thing or things that they've already experienced.

It's easy to look at art objectively, but it's the human element, emotions, and sometimes the apparent imperfection of a work that makes it art. I think that reproductions do have the potential to be art.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

The answer as to "What does it matter what a person is" is very simple. Especially in the realm of art.

The OP is implying that this person is an artist because of skill level, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. This even goes back to something I have said over and over about photography. Just because the technicalities are correct, does not make it a great piece.

That "artists" piece does nothing for me. He is very skilled, yes. However, I would not buy that from a gallery and hang it on my living room wall, which is what being an artist is all about. Artists express their emotions on a medium in which can be shared with other people to get that same expression or emotion. In other words, an artist doesn't capture or paint what he/she thinks other people want to feel, he/she makes other people feel what he/she feels.

Some of the top selling art pieces on the planet are also the most basic, primitive, and completely lacking technical skill. However, they have such an overwhelming emotional impact to persuade how the artist felt with the piece, that it becomes a huge success.

This is also why that, in photography, the most technical photographs are not always the best photographs. I can take a technically correct photograph of a park bench.

OR

I could take a technically incorrect photograph of something that moves you emotionally in the way I had intended.

you're going to buy the technically incorrect one, because you have an emotional attachment to it, and emotions generate actions.

So, concluding, this guy is far from an artist. He is definitely an outstanding illustrator, as already stated.

 

[unpopular]

My grandma paints scenes from photographs, adding her own little flakes and touches. I consider much of what she does as art.

It depends on the extent to which one use a reference I guess. Where do you draw the line?No human creates anything without reference to another thing or things that they've already experienced.

It's easy to look at art objectively, but it's the human element, emotions, and sometimes the apparent imperfection of a work that makes it art. I think that reproductions do have the potential to be art.

I don't really understand what your beef is. I think that it's been adequately discussed, yeah, it's art because it is a novel experience. The process does not matter, so long as there is novelty. Even if your grandmother painted the photos she takes photo realistically - but it wouldn't be photorealism, nor even the fact it is a painting that makes it art.

But if she took a photograph, tried to make it look exactly like an Adams print and then painted the photograph without adding anything new to it, it would not be art but rather an immitation of an Adams photograph which she then reproduced in paint.

It doesn't matter if a machine or a human reproduces something, it is still a reproduction. the bigger question is: is it a painting or a photograph - are inkjets watercolors?

 

[vfotog]

Curious about whether he's licensed the original reference images to reproduce... because these certainly are too close to not be infringement otherwise. in art school, references were called "swipes" for a reason. there is discussion as to whether they are legitimate or not. People would like to see the original art works; I'd like to know what the supposed Bic pens are and what he's drawing on. He calls it "cross-hatching" but I'm not seeing any cross-hatching here.

 

[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

http://vianaarts.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d4zzw85

 

[Derrel]

What does it matter what a person is in the first place...

You have not met many lawyers have you? They are a horrible sub-species. I'm hoping they become extinct like others of their kind ilk did.

 

[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.

 

[unpopular]

You have not met many lawyers have you? They are a horrible sub-species. I'm hoping they become extinct like others of their kind ilk did.

Easy there buddy!! My wife will be starting law school in a year or two.

 

[mishele]

When you guys are done w/ this, can we discuss "talent"? lol