The pen is mightier than the mouse...

[gwpriester]

Please accept my most humble appology.

Gary

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

Be It Rarely So Humble...

[Klaus Nordby]

The photo is splendid gist for my mill: it shows to what great extent the illustration is a slavish copy of the photo. In saying this, I am NOT denying Frank's *technical* XaraX skills - but there is virtually no *artistic* skill involved in making such a copy.

I now blithely await the curses of hordes of howling mad TalkGraphicsists. :-)


K

[pduggan]

Grist, Klaus, grist...

(Unless it's different in Norwegian and Italian?) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

But not to worry, I get the gist of what you're saying and I'll leave you to argue with someone else about art! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]



Peter</p>



Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>

[a4hire]

That is beautiful Frank.
Very good.
I don't think that anyone can do this type of work, or else we would see a lot more of it posted here.

As far as spelling goes ,I prefer the
Sixteen chapel. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

[This message was edited by Bruce Stawicki on May 17, 2001 at 16:09.]

[Eric]

frank,
that is stunning, just look at that ink clinging to the glass, what can i say that has'nt already been said?
i just hope the suits at XARA HQ are aware of your talents

cheers
eric

[jassony]

I certainly didn't think Alex Colville's paintings looked photo realistic, but Bateman's are.

Colville's paintings reminds me of American Watercolorist, Steve Hanks, but I like Hanks subjects better.

Here

Painting photo realistic paintings is a good exercise for developing a good eye (or learning how to see) It has it's value in advertising, a prop or to present a design for consideration, such as the salt & pepper shakers. One has to be highly skilled to accomplish this.

[gwpriester]

My Homage to BF

Gary

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

Be It Rarely So Humble...

[Ross Macintosh]

Judi - My point in noting Colville's work is that although he is certainly technically capable of photorealism, his realism does not rely on how "photographic" it is to be evocative. It his his subdued realism that gives his work the "magic" or dreamlike quality.

I looked at Steve Hank's gallery and my comments would be as follows: I most enjoyed his more "painterly" works. Although I'm very impressed with his technical skill I find his more photorealistic works of far less interest. While it is amazing to look at a watercolour that looks convincingly photorealistic I'm left wondering what's the point? Some of his very beautiful nudes appear to be the same model on the same day. It strikes me that he had a series of photographs taken of the model and then reproduced the images in watercolour. Would not the work of the photographer likely be just as beautiful? I suspect Mr. Hanks produces such work to display his technical prowess rather than for any "artistic" purpose not already addressed by the photograph. Looking at his catalogue I believe he is a very capable artist who gets sidetracked by indulgences (high photorealism) in showing off his technical skill. I don't deny that this type of work has its place. I just fail to understand, beyond the technical aspects, what makes this any more art than the photos in a Playboy?

Another "magic" realist is Christopher Pratt who happened to be a student of Colville (as was my mother). Pratt's work might better illustrate non-photographic realism which is highly evocative without depending on fooling the eye.

To Bruce Stawicki I'd say maybe you are right that if more of us were really capable of photorealistic work we'd see more of it posted. Sure, if you significantly enlarged the numbers of advanced xara users you'd see more photorealism. I do believe there are already many xara users technically capable of reproducing photos. I think why they don't is not because the are unable; but rather, because they lack the motivation. I suspect a image like Big Frank's is not easy to make and that it requires considerable concentration and dedication to the task. Motivation, no doubt, is every bit as important as technical skill if you are going to do what Frank does. Most of the images posted in these forums were created for fun and most people don't find working on the same image for many hours as much fun as working on numerous ideas. We lack the motivation to attempt photorealism. If someone offered a $100,000 prize for the "best" photorealistic xara work, I think you'd find plenty of very impressive entries. Till then I'm really glad Big Frank is motivated, without cash reward, to do it. It gives us something really interesting and challenging to discuss.

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[jassony]

Ross, all I said is that I like Hanks [subject matter better than Colville's. Like I said I don't think Colville's work is photorealism and I don't think Hank's is either.

"Same model taken on the same day", how about the same building front used over and over again?? Hanks uses his wife, and children for his models, other artists have repeatedly used their mistresses. ANYHOW it was not my purpose to place either artist above the other, I just thought that they had similar styles and that is the ONLY reason I posted the link.

Aren't we getting photorealism confused with just plain realism or even representational art? Guess I'll have to go dig out my Art History books.

[Eric]

steve newport is right...'defining what art is' [and is'nt] is by and large a futile pursuit. when i first layed eyes on franks drawing i, and i'm sure many others were...[entertained?] for want of a better word, and my reaction was to simply grin from ear to ear! the subconcious screams photograph! yet the concious says otherwise [Trompe l'oeil?]
surely these reactions are worth reams of anybody's philosophy.

Klaus. How would you quantify a pro. photographer in artistic terms?

p.s. very, very entertaining thread!

whoops that should be ars gratis artis [sorry 10cc fans!]

[This message was edited by scouse eric on May 26, 2001 at 06:35.]