bigsidd says:

Would it be CG by any chance, I have seen a similar one to this before and the likeness to a real face is remarkable.

I have just checked and I appear to be correct to some degree. Not totally right but I knew it wasn’t a real photograph.

Woo! +-20% woo factor

Jägermeister says:

That’s what I call talent.

Jägermeister says:

#3 – LMAO!!!

Misanthropic Scott says:

Actually, I was going to guess the eyes. They don’t quite look like they’re from the same person to me. Perhaps it’s because neither is from a person at all.

James Hatsis says:

I call foul… I don’t think this is a painting.

Undissembled says:

Her ears and nose are too big and her teeth don’t seem centered. I have not looked at the link yet….

tcc3 says:

Wheres the time lapsed you tube video?

That would be more believable

A_B says:

I’m a big fan of photorealism. This painting is technically, amazing, but substantively, it’s incredibly lacking. You look at it and ask yourself, “OK, but what’s the point?” I think it doesn’t have point other than as a technical exercise, which would be fine except for the fact he attacks other artists in his discussion of the painting (see below).

He says he spent 70 hours on the painting. I’m sure people would be surprised that a lot of artists could do similar work with that amount of time (it is quite a technical achievement; I emphasize “similar”).

He has an anticipatory, somewhat defensive, response to those that would criticize the work, on his web page:
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm

But he’s defending an entire school of art, not what he did. The school doesn’t need the defense, I think he knows his work does. Or perhaps he is clueless, because he attacks other artists by saying, “photography does not qualify as art…”in his personal definition of “art.”

Say what?

Why does he makes such an outrageous claim? “[I]t is only a mechanical recording of reality”! LOL, the irony is thick. It would be difficult for this guys painting to be less of a mechanical recording of reality. For a guy that’s essentially a technician or crafts person, he’s got a lot balls to say photography isn’t art. Indeed, his focus is apparently so tight on mechanically recording reality, it’s clear he doesn’t understand photography, or art, at all.

He doesn’t understand that artists in the 19th Century were pretty damned good at painting reality and realized, “what are we doing? This is a dead end.” Leading to Manet and onwards, including the development of photography. For him to say, over 100 years later that photography isn’t art is so wrong, it’s almost delusional.

BubbaRay says:

Some of the astrophotos I take (and spend hours on) for research could probably be considered art. Yet there are some amazing artists with photorealistic visions of the universe.

Here’s just one great link among hundreds:

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/aa_menu_thegraphics.htm