It's technically impressive but pretty boring a lot of the time. That said this picture of a crashing wave is certainly more appealing than a lot of the hyperrealism paintings I'd seen that were still lifes of household objects.
>>2294976 If you're a hobbyist and this sort of work appeals to you then just paint what you like to paint.
If you're looking to make money off it there's probably a pretty small market for this sort of art. I would imagine there's also a larger pool of people who do it since the skillset needed is smaller than having to do something like Illustration which involves more complex problem solving, creativity/imagination.
IMO it's just useless rendering porn. Most of the subject matter I see, like other anons have posted, is boring. The ones that aren't are cool for about 15 seconds then the awe of the technique fades. The most I get out of these is the obligatory "Wow I wish I could paint like that." But that fades quickly too.
Its a skill which in my opinion every artist should strive for, the only reason hyperealism has low artistic value is because most of the time it has a boring subject matter. Either way I think is impressive to be able to reproduce work with such a high quality of draftmanship.
>>2295058 I'm sorry I dont follow, it is my understanding that "draftmanship" is the ability to draw really well is it not? So my previous assessment would in my opinion be correct. Unless you mean something completely different by your response.
stupid and boring. there is nothing there of the artist. take 10 hyperrealists, have them copy the same reference, and you'll get 10 times the exact copy. how could that possibly be considered anything other than boring trash?
>>2295027 This! It's the artists interpretation that makes a piece interesting for me, and that is kinda lost in hyper realism.
Like pic related. It's obviously painted by someone with tonnes of skill and there was probably models and props used, but it's so much more... interesting and luring and draws your eye in to the brushstrokes and lush colors. And I'm saying this with no regards to the subject it depicts. It's just a far more appealing painting to me visually then things like the OP.
As someone who is starting to draw now I admit that I don’t even imagine how I could make something as the image in the OP: I don’t know what skills are necessary and I admire the quantity of study and effort that these people put on their work.
My artistic goal, however, is to draw, above all, the human figure: man and women, young and old. I want to be able to capture, in my work, the inner lives and the very cerebral work of the characters. I want to create the scenes myself and, although I plan to use models, I am always going to change them according to my own views.
So my goal in art is to create new realities, things that did not exist before: I want to tell stories and to create new human beings and personalities with my work. I do not think that the ultra-realists care that much with that, but I would certainly appreciate to possess their skills.
And they are certainly better than all the abstract art tribe and those Pollocks.
>>2295120 dont worry its really easy if you take into account the grids projectors lenses and all the other cheats they use to get the result. You'll never learn how to do it unless you aim for it though, its just useless at the end of the day though.
>>2295306 Being able to copy a photo from reference 1:1 doesn't translate at all to your ability to draw from imagination. Idiots like you constantly confuse realism with photorealism and hyperrealism. REALISM is the skill that is worthwhile pursuing, whether from reference or from imagination, it both improves your overall artistic skill and knowledge.
Photorealism and Hyperrealism are parlor tricks to get facebook likes from plebs who know nothing whatsoever about art. Not a single great artist paints photorealistic.
>>2295319 >Being able to copy a photo from reference 1:1 doesn't translate at all to your ability to draw from imagination And ability to draw from imagination doesn't translate to artistic value either. Sargent, Velazquez, Rembrandt and all the other greats didn't do their best work from their head. There is nothing wrong with painting from reference. The issue is when you don't selectively change and arrange things.
>>2295319 chuck close is a good photorealist... I mean he invented a whole new genre of art.. I think that's some kind of merit. GRanded his later works emphasize the process of make photorealistic works. Seeing his grids that are arranged like tiny abstract canvases is amazing..
This thread is funny. There are millions of reasons to make art and all of you guys are right, but you're not the only one who is right.
it's a more technically skilled equivalent of parlor trick sidewalk artists who do those landscape paintings in 3 minutes. incredibly boring and unimaginative, leaves nothing to to question or observe besides "well, that sure looks like that thing in real life". the skills could surely translate into a very nice piece of artwork depending on if they lose the heavy use of copying, tracing, grids, all of that.
Hyperrealists work with the intent of copying an existing piece 1:1. This is not referencing as the hyperrealist has no input in their craft. The composition is already made for them, the rest is coloring by the numbers carefully.
Referencing is something else entirely and is necessary for all artists.
>>2295483 I didn't mean it as "wow, people are being dumbasses. I can't believe they can't tell the difference between alkalized water strained through activated almonds and regular ol' tap water". It's just odd to see people going in on a movement/style when they're actually thinking of another one.
>>2294976 I think the artist in the OP's picture spent too long on his preparatory study. And then accidentally held it up to the camera, instead of his original work that he created from the overwrought study. Oops.
That draughstmanship and photo/hyper realism are the same, or closely linked, or that this type of realism is the highest end of good draughtsmanship is demonstrably false. Michelangelo is a far greater draughstman than any realists of this kind dead or alive yet his works are not anywhere near as accurate in the effects of light and details. Raphael too, in his simple designs, was a greater draughstman than any photorealist.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.