May 22, 2007: "Painting of Tica" - this is not a photograph

Undertoad • May 22, 2007 8:08 am
Image

Artist Dru Blair painted - yes painted - this image from a printout of a digital photo. Head over to Mr Blair's site to see versions of the painting at various stages of completion. It took the gent 70 hours to finish this item. He has an interesting take on photorealism:

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.

Often, the artist's deviation from the reference material is unconscious. Despite my best efforts, my own unconscious stylization creeps into all of my work, and it is a struggle to keep it subdued.

Photographic reference is almost always used as a guide by photorealists, but becomes less necessary as an artist gains proficiency, and understanding of the elements of photorealism. While reading the list of the elements of realism, consider that no other artistic style demands so much of an artist. Photorealism is by far, the most difficult artistic style to master.
Scriveyn • May 22, 2007 9:23 am
Ce n'est pas une pipe
Shawnee123 • May 22, 2007 9:41 am
Why is it not a pipe?

Wow, sure looks like a photograph.
b°b • May 22, 2007 10:01 am
@Shawnee123: It's not a pipe, it's a painting of a pipe.
Shawnee123 • May 22, 2007 10:09 am
I'm so confused.

I was joking, but not sure what I was joking about. I don't remember the word pipe from my two quarters of college French.

Am I just completely obtuse? (Please don't say it.):D
Hime • May 22, 2007 10:20 am
Shawnee123;345613 wrote:
I'm so confused.

I was joking, but not sure what I was joking about. I don't remember the word pipe from my two quarters of college French.

Am I just completely obtuse? (Please don't say it.):D


Image

It's a famous surrealist painting by Magritte. The idea is that one shouldn't mistake a representation of a thing for the thing itself -- each should be seen for itself, not for how it resembles the other one. It sort of refers to the discourse in French philosophy/ literary theory about the relation between the signifier and the signified.
Shawnee123 • May 22, 2007 10:25 am
:o

All the art history classes I took in college and I missed that reference. I remember the Son of Man better, though.

Have you ever heard "Rene and Georgette Magritte With Their Dog After The War" by Paul Simon? Neat song.
xoxoxoBruce • May 22, 2007 1:05 pm
Isn't every person you see in magazine ads, billboards and movies a painting? Either Photoshop or makeup artist.
Shawnee123 • May 22, 2007 1:06 pm
I like the way you think, Bruce.
SeanAhern • May 22, 2007 1:51 pm
Actually, I bet it is a photograph. A photograph of a painting. :-)

(Yes, I know I'm being pedantic.)
Kitsune • May 22, 2007 2:40 pm
He painted the chromatic abberation and blur caused by the camera lens, too? The closeup doesn't even show any hints that it isn't a photograph and the "various stages" images are too small to prove it.

Ahh...maybe. Damn impressive if real.
Sundae • May 22, 2007 3:50 pm
Shawnee123;345616 wrote:
:o

All the art history classes I took in college and I missed that reference.

Don't fret chick. I have never actually seen the painting, only read about it, and heard it referenced. If anyone had asked me to describe it I would have ended up with ostrich sized egg on my face - I thought it was a pipe as in oil-pipe, water-pipe, heating-pipe etc. I had no idea it was a smoking type pipe.

Have you ever heard "Rene and Georgette Magritte With Their Dog After The War" by Paul Simon? Neat song.

It is indeed.
monster • May 22, 2007 8:44 pm
Kitsune;345692 wrote:
He painted the chromatic abberation and blur caused by the camera lens, too? The closeup doesn't even show any hints that it isn't a photograph and the "various stages" images are too small to prove it.

Ahh...maybe. Damn impressive if real.


I thought the same about the "various stages". I want to see the layers as he build up the eyes... etc.

utter sceptic regards............
Scriveyn • May 23, 2007 2:20 am
xoxoxoBruce;345679 wrote:
Isn't every person you see in magazine ads, billboards and movies a painting? Either Photoshop or makeup artist.


Very true. - Besides what's all the fuss about photorealism? Terry Pratchett has got it right: A camera is just a box with an imp inside, painting away like mad. We've (almost) all got one :D
Nikolai • May 23, 2007 6:16 am
Well this "painting" has been partly put togeather by air-brush, so I gather from his website, air-brush makes skin so much easier to do
milkfish • May 23, 2007 7:59 am
I like how the "3.5 hour" image makes Tica look as if she has a layer of shaving cream on. Maybe that's what the painter needed to do mainly, leave off the subject's beard and mustache.

I have a couple of airbrushes myself and have used them a bit for work. I can picture how he could use the airbrush in laying down the base colors and blending the broad areas of shadow and highlight, not so much the details like the hair.
Subtle nuances created by an xacto knife, an eraser, and some colored pencil can build convincing skin texture. The etcetera technique also helps the believability of the skin and hair texture. Fine hair is created using my shield-reveal technique, and my split frisket technique. Airbrush constitutes about 99% of the image.
miss_chance • May 23, 2007 10:22 am
:smack: I'm always tuned off by artist who claim about *their* art that "no other artistic style demands so much of an artist. " Feh. That's poppy-cock no matter *who* says it.

A damn fine example of photo-realism, but I'm afraid I'm one of those painters who generaly dismiss photo-realism of this degree as being more or less pointless. I'll agree it's a great way to hone skills, but a dancer generally doesn't post vids on You Tube of themselves doing crunches to hone their abs. (Although at least there'd be hubba-hubba value to that ;) )
glatt • May 23, 2007 10:48 am
I'd be more impressed if they also posted the photo that he copied. Who knows? Maybe this painting looks nothing like that photo.
Shawnee123 • May 23, 2007 10:52 am
glatt;345972 wrote:
I'd be more impressed if they also posted the photo that he copied. Who knows? Maybe this painting looks nothing like that photo.


I was lucky enough to stumble upon the original photo. Glatt is right, the painting is not entirely accurate.
glatt • May 23, 2007 10:54 am
:lol:
Kitsune • May 23, 2007 11:45 am
Purported comparison between original and airbrush painting.

I'd like to see, you know, canvas texture detail or something.
Gravdigr • May 24, 2007 12:39 am
:zzz: ZZZZZZZZZZZ:zzz:
SPUCK • May 24, 2007 7:00 am
No Kitsune - wrong original.

Image
monster • May 24, 2007 8:07 am
:rotflol:
monster • May 24, 2007 8:08 am
So he made her skin oranger, her nose bigger and her hair messier? I bet he has clients lining up....
xoxoxoBruce • May 24, 2007 6:11 pm
I don't think he made her nose bigger, just her face smaller.
monster • May 24, 2007 11:17 pm
maybe not physically bigger, but there's more shadow, implying more....

...either way, not a flattering interpretation imo
Flint • May 24, 2007 11:33 pm
More shadow implies less. Light catches on the surface of objects.
monster • May 24, 2007 11:45 pm
looks bigger.
piercehawkeye45 • May 25, 2007 4:24 am
I want to know why isn't she on the "Beautiful Women" thread?
Sundae • May 25, 2007 10:45 am
piercehawkeye45;346694 wrote:
I want to know why isn't she on the "Beautiful Women" thread?

Because you haven't put her on there yet?
xoxoxoBruce • May 25, 2007 6:10 pm
Or because it's not a woman, it's a painting.