
Painting of Tica by Dru Blair - auferstehung
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
======
ankeshk
Saw this a couple of weeks back. 9 other paintings by 9 other folks that look
like photos:

[http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-
that-a...](http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-that-are-
actually-paintings/)

------
caffeine
I can't wait 'til somebody makes the tools to let this guy create holograms of
people.

------
diN0bot
my housemate's first python script was to help with documenting processes such
as this one. when he runs the script it takes a screenshot and then provides a
text box for him to comment in. it basically added version control to his
mechanical engineering design process. he wanted to document why he was making
certain design changes as he went. i imagine it work for this process, too.

------
petite
This guy is amazing. He also was the official artist for the Star Trek:
Voyager books.

------
vijayr
awesome

------
Tichy
What would you paint if you could paint like that?

~~~
bmelton
Money. I suspect that Dru could make quite the counterfeiter if he decided to
be.

------
diiq
What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is.
What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art.

Photos are not 'mere reproductions of reality' any more than his painting is.
Paint, print, screen, clay, plaster -- these are _not_ reality; they do not
have the fidelity of the real world. When I paint, I must decide to what
degree the intensity of light is important, to what degree the detail is
important, to what degree the tonal range is relevant to my portrayal. Even
more importantly, choosing which part of reality to examine is vital! Can a
photographer pay no attention to aperture, shutter speed, composition, crop,
focus? Can they ignore the possibilities of manipulating the world before
photographing it (arranging, building, lighting, removing components until
their "metaphysical value judgment" is satisfied? Sure, they can ignore all
that. A camera with a timer can make an exposure, no metaphysical presence
necessary. But no artist _must_ do so. And even leaving things up to the
camera is a "metaphysical value judgment."

You didn't make art. You used tools to apply pigment to a surface replicating
a temporary sensory input; a purely mechanical recording of reality.

~~~
jamesbritt
"What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is.
"

Well, perhaps, but it's border-line kitsch.

"What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art."

Lots of people think that way. Often they prefer kitsch and schlock.

Technical skill for it's own sake is pretty worthless. It's impressive, to a
degree, but what matters is to what it is applied.

It's the difference between being able to recite the whole of On Lisp from
memory and being able to write innovative software.

~~~
diiq
"Well, perhaps, but it's border-line kitsch."

Bah. I'm not making aesthetic judgments --- I don't care if it's _good_ or
not. I do care that he is willing to deny an entire medium the ability to
change the way I think, feel, and sense the world.

We live in a time when people think that art is a frivolity; silly at best and
a senseless waste at worst. That is not because people have become less
intelligent or less capable of culture. It's because artists (a community I
count myself within) are failing to communicate, to relate to the rest of
humanity. Artists denying each other's work and medium of choice is a pretty
vicious act of treachery against the mission of reminding the world that art
is vital --- it is both a living field and a necessity of life.

------
michael_dorfman
I agree with him completely when he writes: _"The act of merely copying a
photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills."_

However, when he writes: _"This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a
photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated
from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal"_ I have to say, "not so
much".

~~~
petite
The decisions he made for the painting go down to a level of detail many of us
could not comprehend. It's akin to writing an entire operating system, then
showing it to someone who uses computers very rarely in their life. That
person may think that the operating system is just like all the others they've
used, but it's only the people who are coded the thing that can realize how
different it truly is.

~~~
michael_dorfman
That doesn't make much difference to me as a viewer. I'm impressed with his
chops, but I don't see what makes his reproduction better than the original
photo.

~~~
petite
Oh, I'm not arguing the artistic/aesthetic quality here. I was only saying
that I do agree with him when he says that he made many decisions in changing
the original for what _he_ sees as aesthetically better.

------
sfphotoarts
as the article points out photorealism is pointless, except as practice and
enjoyment for the craftsperson. What I find interesting in this is that what
he has actually painted is not Tica but the imperfections imparted by the
little digicam and the inkjet printing technique. That's pretty funny, to
reproduce the imperfections of the medium. It's only really interesting from
an artistic perspective if the picture were instead titled 'Nikon 8700 Inkjet
print'.

Very talented craftsperson.

~~~
ellyagg
Uh, no, he didn't say photorealism was pointless. In fact, he said the
opposite:

> As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as
> pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic
> paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality
> based on the artist's vision. The act of merely copying a photograph has no
> artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills. Most of my aviation
> paintings would be impossible to photograph, such as Timing is Everything
> for example. This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but
> is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the
> reference photo for more aesthetic appeal.

Your "craftsperson" reference is snide. I have a couple of snide opinions
myself, I guess. It's obvious that there is a wide variety of compositions
just dying to have photorealistic treatment--subjects where, as the author
points out, getting a camera shot would be impossible. Unfortunately, being
able to do photorealistic art takes real skill, and that skill appears to be
consistently deprecated by the art world.

~~~
movix
Somewhere, there's a forum full of artists arguing the finer points of
programming.

~~~
jacquesm
I was wondering what this posting did on HN anyway, but after your enlightened
observation I will invest some time in searching for this forum.

