This is NOT a photograph

[DavidV]

Take a look at this painting: http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp

Yes, this is a painting. Check out the artists defense of photo realism:

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.

One immediate criticism that comes to mind is that the painting is a reproduction of a digital photograph, not of how the model looks like to the human eye, as you can see the imperfections introduced by the digital camera.

Edit: If you read to the end, you'll find a surprise.

Edited October 5, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[aequalsa]

Edit: If you read to the end, you'll find a surprise.

Wow...I kinda wanted to hug him after seeing his painting and then reading that.

[Scott_Connery]

While I do think that it is a truly impressive display of artistic skill, I can't help but think it is also a monumental waste of time. If you want a photograph, just take one.

[Tenure]

The reason photography does not qualify

as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality.

I thoroughly disagree with this - I have to leave soon, so I'll give a more thorough reason later.

[Chops]

as you can see the imperfections introduced by the digital camera.

Aside from the JPEG artifacts, I'm not noticing any imperfections. The JPEG artifacts are expected to be there because the images are in JPEG form. I'd be willing to bet that in reproducing it, that he would have made sure to remove the artifacts (if there were any). It would be nice if he'd upload a lossless format.

[Dorian]

Amazing. Although I don't agree that all of photography is disqualified as art, but I'm not sure if that is what he meant.

I've seen some really amazing photos that I know were extremely difficult to shoot and/or process (film & digital). Some photographers shoot the world as they see it and focus on that, some modify real photos to adjust what they see or feel, whether subtle or major I think it still think these kind of photos qualify as art.

[RationalBiker]

Amazing. Although I don't agree that all of photography is disqualified as art, but I'm not sure if that is what he meant.

I tend to agree that some photography does qualify as art using the Objectivist definition. First, before you even get to the post-shot editing that goes on you have a lot of decisions being made regarding angle, framing, lighting, etc. Then post-shot editing come into play where the photographer selectively highlights or burns areas of the photo, accentuates or subdues coloring, "fixes" blemishes, etc. etc. The end result is a selective recreation of reality that reflects value judgements made by the "artist".

As one example; http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=590470

If you look around this site you can see other examples of just plain photos and pieces that required some selective editing to capture not just want was on the film (or digitial film) plane, but what the photographer saw in his mind or what he wanted to see in his mind.

[Carrier of the Zero]

at first I thought the title of this thread was going to be a reference to the old Mission of Burma song... But painting like that took some amazing skill. A lot of time and hard work went into attaining that level of ability. Bravo.

[JMeganSnow]

I can't help but think it is also a monumental waste of time. If you want a photograph, just take one.

It is if he's only copying the photo, but if you read down further and look at his aviation painting example especially, no copying is involved. The merciless clarity of photorealism + portrayel of romantic subjects is *awesome* art. It'd be nice if he selected some better subjects, though.

Edited October 7, 2007 by JMeganSnow