At 12/3/09 07:59 AM, J-qb wrote:
[this conversation has been moved from here]
I think Karls point, and mine too, is that its hard for us to see how you would express yourself through photorealism... since your only "copying" something... (no offense intended)
But I guess the point would then be that photorealism isnt exactly photorealism..?
In that sense it can become a conundrum,
but you have to look at it on a more simple plain.
wile we may draw photo real, Hyper real or just a plain "human" object, the rules of anatomy and proportion apply. We can exaggerate features and parts, but the same base line of understanding is needed.
one point i missed in my original reply was the standard the artist holds himself to. That could be what is at play here.
That`s an interesting way to look at it, I think any godhowilovethatword-"style" comes from a lot of practice. That would mean, mastering any therewegoagain "style" is just as difficult. The difference with photorealism would be that poeple see the faults a lot easier... Poeple know what things look like. Realistic human faces are so hard to draw because poeple (including the artist himself) are trained to notice details in faces. Its how we recognize each other, but also how we communicate. I once heard someone suggest drawing animal skulls. They are easier to get right, since noone notices any mistakes you made..
Of course they are not easier/harder to draw, poeple just dont notice.
Well I think its pretty much known any art form takes allot of time and practice, From cartooning, photorealsim, abstract, object etc. so we use the word"style" in place of what it is and to not compare em.
The point about animals sculls to humans is valid, same with Dragons and mythical creatures, no one can tell you your wrong because they have no point of reference, but that can be said about almost anything.
You know crooked eyes or misshaped arms when you see em. also laws of proportions and perspective will always apply.
But what i think we need focus on is the fact its not how "real" you get away with, but more so what you are doing and why you are doing it.
I think this debate is coming from different views on the matter,
I had a uncle who used to look at paintings of trees and waterfalls, and say"why dont they just take a picture"
and the answer was" because then its not a painting"
same applies here.
but i digress, because as i always say " I am no artist, i just draw really well"
I prefer to say, I dont draw very well, im just an artist
so that alone could be the awnser.
I think that is the exactly the question... what is fun in drawing really well, if you cant express yourself through it... and if you can IMO your an artist.
as i said before, the meaning is that in doing realism, you are in fact expressing your self.
I kinda miss quoted my self at the last part, I didn't mean it as a whole in the face of photorealsim, i just meant it in some of my own personal pieces I have done that was realistic.
Just because i didn't convoy a mood or have some feeling to say, I was still proud of it, was fun.
But more so it was all about getting others reaction to what i did, Rather the person i drew, or just anyone who looked at it.
Maybe that may not be artistic, But in the technical sense it is considered art
