Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: FredBGG on May 17, 2013, 10:25:51 pm
-
http://www.dzimirsky.com/
(http://procdn.illusion.scene360.com/wp-content/themes/sahara-10/submissions/2012/11/dzimirsky_02.jpg)
I'm still digesting this.. so good it's almost hard to believe.
-
It's amazing what some of these artists do. I posted about a similar artist on my Facebook page a while back. If I can find the post (unlikely since FB has no effective search function) I'll come back and link it here.
-
Bert Monroy does some amazing photorealistic art, but this is just fabulous. Thanks for sharing it!
Mike.
-
And there we run into the problem of definitions of "art".
I looked at the images first and was mightily impressed. Then I made the mistake of reading the Statement and it depressed both myself and the value of what I'd just been ooing and aahing at moments before. What friggin' crap! Remove the first two of the three paragraphs and it makes sense. Is such written nonsense really, really essential to the selling of a great skill?
Rob C
-
Well I'm sure they're very impressive but I feel like doing drawings from photos is usually a bit of an artistic dead end.
If you wanted a photograph of a subject you wouldn't take a photo of a drawing of that subject.
Not saying that photos can't be handy for reference but I'm sure that you get more interesting drawings from live interaction with the subject.
Graeme
-
For me, the exemplar of this genre (or tradition) is Chuck Close.
http://chuckclose.com/#/official-gallery
Cheers,
W
-
I used to date the sister of Steve Mills and had the chance to see his work in progress on a few occasions when he lived in North Florida. Although he works in color and uses oil. Mind boggling. Best I've ever seen at he genre. http://www.stevemillsart.com/ (http://www.stevemillsart.com/)
-
Dzimirsky works from photographs to help make his drawings look like the photographs he's copying, which seems entirely pointless to me. What he's doing is mimicry, not art.
-
I should start taking pictures of drawings, blow them up, and market them as 'drawing realistic' art. It might be fun to add a tilt-shift effects to simulate depth of field.
I 'get' Chuck Close. He suffers from a condition known as "face blindness." Oliver Sacks does too; he wrote a fascinating book on the subject—The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat. I also have this condition, but to a lesser extent.
-
Dzimirsky works from photographs to help make his drawings look like the photographs he's copying, which seems entirely pointless to me. What he's doing is mimicry, not art.
How about the art of mimicry? Not everybody can do what he does. I'm pretty confident that I can't do it.
-
How about the art of mimicry? Not everybody can do what he does. I'm pretty confident that I can't do it.
The art is not in the mimicry.
Peter
-
Has anyone noticed who started this thread? I bet Fred is on just another medium-format-is-dead crusade...this time the "killer" is not D800, but a lowly pencil! ;D
-
If what you want is a photograph, why settle for a pencil drawing?
-
If what you want is a photograph, why settle for a pencil drawing?
Precisely because it is not a photograph! A drawing is unique, unlike photograph.
-
Really? All you have to do to make a photograph unique is make one print and destroy the negative or the file. I see plenty of photographers doing that on a partial basis by "editioning" their prints to make them more precious. In fact, Brett Weston is one of the guilty ones.
By the way, Charles Sheeler was making photographically perfect paintings way back there. The interesting thing about Sheeler is that he was both a very fine painter and a very fine photographer.
-
Really? All you have to do to make a photograph unique is make one print and destroy the negative or the file. I see plenty of photographers doing that on a partial basis by "editioning" their prints to make them more precious. In fact, Brett Weston is one of the guilty ones.
By the way, Charles Sheeler was making photographically perfect paintings way back there. The interesting thing about Sheeler is that he was both a very fine painter and a very fine photographer.
Agreed
-
What interests me is what happens when I look at these images. I find that they provide a specific aesthetic response that is different to (by which I don't mean better than) what can be had from images that are unambiguously paintings/drawings, or unambiguously photographs. There is a fine Chuck Close (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=5Zoech3SFWzyVM&tbnid=Aes0qZoBbR7DXM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fartsearch.nga.gov.au%2FDetail.cfm%3FIRN%3D37305%26PICTAUS%3DTRUE&ei=G4f_Uee0N4vakgXciICABg&bvm=bv.50165853,d.dGI&psig=AFQjCNFqOOwyOE0XggmMeJOifYYC9FUHsg&ust=1375787158224902) in the National Gallery of Australia that I look at often. One way of putting it would be that I see painting (or drawing) fighting back against photography, which had a go at killing it in the 19th Century and forever diminished its scope, by appropriating photography's claim to meticulous representation of realilty, while retaining its own power of selection so there is nothing accidental in the image, no need ever to use Photoshop. The image is energised by the way it flips back and forward between photograph and drawing.