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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
For some reason the airbrush has never been seen as a fine art tool - perhaps because it doesn't come in contact with the canvas or paper. I think SFphotoarts is dismissive not least because Blair is dismissive of photography as an art, arguing that it's a mere mechanical recording. Then again, if you click on the 'paintings' link it's odd (to me) that 90% of his work is militaria, a surprisngly narrow choice of subject.
Of course, while many things re impossible to photograph for one reason or another, visual effects artists and compositors specialize in making it credible - as someone with an interest in the latter, I find his airbrush approach extremely interesting.
"many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision"
That's what photographs are so a photorealist image is unlikely to differ. A photo is not itself reality.
I've seen videos not unlike your F111 ("Timing is Everything").
This artwork undoubtedly takes huge skill - I think that it is deprecated because it doesn't appear to say much beyond the actual image. It doesn't appear to convey deeper meaning, resonating with something of the social climate and the person of the viewer as [I consider] good art should.
The "Art World" has almost completely removed themselves from craft and have chosen to focus on ideas.
The system is now that popular artists are management with a crew of lower tier artists who function as manufacturing.
Artisans, including air brush artists, are now by definition not Artists, because to celebrate your technical skills is to be seen only as a technician by the "Ideas are Art" crowd.
Similar enough to the management/programmer divide.
It seems to me that it's consistently deprecated because it's harder than anything else visual artists do, and there's an objective measurement of how well it was done. I don't have a very high opinion of most art, you'll gather. :)
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".