HEVYDEVY FORUMS

http://deputy-dog.com/2007/10/05/9-arti ... your-mind/



that is an oil&acrilic on canvas painting.
If you're like "no way", don't worry, i've checked the whole link and still can't believe it

HOLY BALLS!

Righteous. My favorite artist who's blown my mind is, and always will be, John Waterhouse:

whoa

Those are amazing, hopefully one day I can paint close to the quality of those pieces.

you know what i find funny? By the post author's and the page's comments, a lot of people don't consider those art.

I got a "Not Found"-page. But happened to find some other nice links at the side.

By the way, if that's for real it's impressive of course. My favorite painters would have to be Van Eyck, Bosch and Brueghel.

Apart from the larger then life models, some of the paintings show skill above creativity. Might as well just be biological printers with an HP or Epson logo branded on their foreheads.

KJ Gould wrote:Apart from the larger then life models, some of the paintings show skill above creativity. Might as well just be biological printers with an HP or Epson logo branded on their foreheads.

Very true, I thought the same thing. If you're so amazingly skilled, why not do something original with it rather than painting portraits and flowers?

Yanko wrote:you know what i find funny? By the post author's and the page's comments, a lot of people don't consider those art.

Biert wrote:

KJ Gould wrote:Apart from the larger then life models, some of the paintings show skill above creativity. Might as well just be biological printers with an HP or Epson logo branded on their foreheads.

Very true, I thought the same thing. If you're so amazingly skilled, why not do something original with it rather than painting portraits and flowers?

In response to all 3 of those posts...

As impressive as these pieces are, I don't think it is that ridiculous that some people may find them less 'artistic' than a more interpretative piece. The skill displayed is incredible, but I find them all less interesting than something which shows a little more of the artist and a little less of the subject. You know? If the image shown is identical to the original then it shows only the ability of the artist, not their character. For example, 2 totally different artists could create exactly the same image, which to me makes it a little redundant. No different to 2 different photographers using the same camera set up on the same tripod to take 2 consecutive photos.

Well, that is how I feel about photo realistic painting anyway. I mean, if you could paint that well then why bother just mirroring reality? If I could paint even half as good as these folk I would be doing something totally whacked out, I am sure! Can you imagine Dali or Bosch painting in this manner?! That would surely open the gates to another dimension, the world would tear itself apart and cry at the sight of such a piece.

The sculptures are very cool though! That's a little different to me. The viewer is a little more involved, and the artist has the option of sculpting the situation to keep you involved. More interesting anyway!

Aaaah. Bah. Boo. Boobah. Weee.

I agree, I'd much rather see that skill used for pieces based in fantasy or the surreal. The guy who made that giant sculptured head has shown creativity, for example, and some of the pieces involving nazis has shown it too.

my god....

And KJ is right, if they could use that talent and paint totally surreal landscapes and the like, it would be downright amazing!

What's the point in photo realistic painting if cameras can do it faster?

Biert wrote:What's the point in photo realistic painting if cameras can do it faster?

Showing off? It's like the Steve Vai of painters probably...

M.C. Escher