Drawn

boggle-ocks

boggle-ocks

On his site the artist says this;

“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.”

This is not at all true in my opinion. The photographer makes many creative decisions during the process of taking the photo and after in processing it thus “filtering” it through his mind.

This artist obviously has technical skill but his “interpretation” of a photo is so nuanced and insignificant (my opinion) that I would argue that many photographs would qualify more as “art” than his “interpretation.

I have no problem with this kind of painting. I do however take issue with his attack on photography, which is odd since he seems to be trying to emulate the very medium he derides.

On his site the artist says this;

“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.”

This is not at all true in my opinion. The photographer makes many creative decisions during the process of taking the photo and after in processing it thus “filtering” it through his mind.

This artist obviously has technical skill but his “interpretation” of a photo is so nuanced and insignificant (my opinion) that I would argue that many photographs would qualify more as “art” than his “interpretation.

I have no problem with this kind of painting. I do however take issue with his attack on photography, which is odd since he seems to be trying to emulate the very medium he derides.

I don’t see the use of it. Easier to do a retouche. Even though I apreciate the craftmanship.

I don’t see the use of it. Easier to do a retouche. Even though I apreciate the craftmanship.

I’d be interested to see this picture in real detail. It looks to me as though the final image is actually the photographic reference image and not a painting at all, perhaps an easy mistake to make when working at a highly detailed realistic level. But look closely at the nostrils and the tiny very fine hairs there, or the white areas in the earing. Perhaps I’m wrong and this is extremely detailed work, so as a final example, in this lesson, the artist should place both the painting and the reference side by side and in detail.

Apart from that I find it ironic that in a time when magazines are employing air-brushers to lose the detail of skin-pores, wrinkles & silia to immortalise stars, the painter is inclined to prove the truth of his work by painstakingly adding these realities of life.

In this case, if this is as stated, the painting is more real than most cover photographs.

A further irony, that an artist so reliant on photography for his end product should knock the artistry of a photographer. Like a Xerox machine questioning the content of a document.

I’d be interested to see this picture in real detail. It looks to me as though the final image is actually the photographic reference image and not a painting at all, perhaps an easy mistake to make when working at a highly detailed realistic level. But look closely at the nostrils and the tiny very fine hairs there, or the white areas in the earing. Perhaps I’m wrong and this is extremely detailed work, so as a final example, in this lesson, the artist should place both the painting and the reference side by side and in detail.

Apart from that I find it ironic that in a time when magazines are employing air-brushers to lose the detail of skin-pores, wrinkles & silia to immortalise stars, the painter is inclined to prove the truth of his work by painstakingly adding these realities of life.

In this case, if this is as stated, the painting is more real than most cover photographs.

A further irony, that an artist so reliant on photography for his end product should knock the artistry of a photographer. Like a Xerox machine questioning the content of a document.

Amazing. Very impressive. Not the kind of artwork I would take much time to admire, though. As incredibly talented as this guy obviously is, imagine what he could produce if he wanted to make real art.

Amazing. Very impressive. Not the kind of artwork I would take much time to admire, though. As incredibly talented as this guy obviously is, imagine what he could produce if he wanted to make real art.

” imagine what he could produce if he wanted to make real art.” That’s precisely the point, he’s not interested in creating anything original, even if he wanted to, I don’t think he could.

There’s a big difference between artisan and artist.

This exercise is not only pointless but unimaginative without being charming. In order for anyone to understand and appreciate the “artistic” part of this lazy and useless endeavor, the original art (photo) must be present, this “art” cannot stand on its own, that is without something to compare it against.

I like photography, although I don’t consider it art but I’m not a big fan of copy machines. There’s nothing remotely creative or interesting about this sort of thing, except in a freakish, side show kind of way.

” imagine what he could produce if he wanted to make real art.” That’s precisely the point, he’s not interested in creating anything original, even if he wanted to, I don’t think he could.

There’s a big difference between artisan and artist.

This exercise is not only pointless but unimaginative without being charming. In order for anyone to understand and appreciate the “artistic” part of this lazy and useless endeavor, the original art (photo) must be present, this “art” cannot stand on its own, that is without something to compare it against.

I like photography, although I don’t consider it art but I’m not a big fan of copy machines. There’s nothing remotely creative or interesting about this sort of thing, except in a freakish, side show kind of way.