Comments on: There’s Something Odd About This Picture…

By: A_B

A_B — Wed, 23 May 2007 21:41:05 +0000

“I took a digital photograph in my studio of a local model (Tica) with my Nikon Coolpix 8700, then printed copies for each student on my Epson 9600 printer.”

That’s the artist from his web page. She exists.

By: SN

SN — Tue, 22 May 2007 23:05:57 +0000

36. “what’s the point… just take a friggin’ photo!”

Because the girl in the picture doesn’t exist.

By: Awake

Awake — Tue, 22 May 2007 23:02:03 +0000

Great talent.
But if it looks like a photo… what’s the point… just take a friggin’ photo!

By: Firas

Firas — Tue, 22 May 2007 20:32:19 +0000

There is no way on earth that it’s a painting. It’s just a bit too real, and then there are the oddities already pointed out above especially the halter thing which John mentions.

By: dwright

dwright — Tue, 22 May 2007 14:56:07 +0000

Here is link to a board I go to. Check out Ricky Jackson’s comment from someone who knows him.
http://tinyurl.com/24px2y

Still, I have problems. For one, when he shows the steps in progress of the painting, why is the upper half of the face done with much detail and the bottom nothing? Wouldn’t you at least lay down a base color of flesh tone on the whole face first.

It sure would be easy to start with a photo and then reduce down and photoshop the “progress” working backwards.

By: jill

jill — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:18:34 +0000

I think this is his real painting. He said the difference between this and his other work is he didn’t have an imposed deadline. His earlier attempt at portraiture was reasonably good but is clearly airbrushed. This one he spent 70 hours on and didn’t bother to paint the full body. He obviously had more time to focus on the subtler tonal variations and details of skin. I’d still like to see the painting and the photo side by side.

The painting’s not perfect, I see subtle flaws. I don’t want to nitpick, the guy’s got skills. The thing that stands out most to me is the earring and earlobe. The earring looks like it’s just kind of floating on top with some quick fake shadows added for effect. With so much subtle detail and refinement everywhere else it makes the painting look unfinished. Also the the placement of the earring looks unnaturally low. Regardless, the flaws are what allow him to qualify his work as valid according to his own definition.

I get that he’s sensitive about what is “valid.” Photography is the reason photorealism was and is largely dismissed as obsolete. Why spend 70 hours airbrushing when you can just take a photo? It’s really unfair for him to negate photography, even based on his own definition of art. Photography is valid (maybe not so much those portraits you can get at Sears or WalMart, or pics taken with point-and-shoot cameras) but in general, people learn the technical aspects to facilitate the creative. He says that photography “removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element” How can that be when a photographer chooses their composition, chooses their focal point, depth of field, exposure, contrast, lighting, etc. They’re still choices based on personal taste, subject matter, and the understanding of the visual and relational elements of art. It’s not all mechanical.

By: Danijel

Danijel — Tue, 22 May 2007 10:04:20 +0000

I was just wondering…why bother with all that hard work when you can take a photo like that in a couple of seconds? That ain’t art!

By: BubbaRay

BubbaRay — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:06:14 +0000

#29, JCD, Hmm, must be the real John C. Dvorak, since my earlier post disappeared, Mr. Fusion’s post was edited, and renumbering has messed my post numbering to Mr. Fusion. I just wondered if it was really you posting. Now I know. Hey, it’s your blog, I was just concerned that someone was impersonating you. No offense was implied or intended.

By: BubbaRay

BubbaRay — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:34:07 +0000

[off topic]
#29, Mr. Fusion,

Visually, through a 1 meter scope (or even a 24″), horse heads are great.

The Horsehead Nebula region is perhaps the most beautiful region of the sky. Many different objects are together in a magnificent mix of color and light. This film photo from only a 12.5 inch newtonian at f/7:

http://www.koyote.com/users/bobm/horsehead.htm

[Yes, it's raining tonight, so nothing but computer time for me]

By: John C Dvorak

John C Dvorak — Tue, 22 May 2007 07:20:34 +0000

I'm having too many problems with this pic and then there are these two versions shown on his website.. the pic where he's standing with the other two guys at the painting: and this pic showing the craft. Note the halter top. There is a knot on one and not on the other...a lump of fabric. Everything else is almost exactly the same except for this detail. The sameness even applies to hair anomalies. It looks to me as if the painting shown with the three guys is merely an airbrushed version of the other pic. In the process he took out the halter top lump or fabric. But never bothered to do the hair. Is one the original photo? Or is it the painting because the image appears to be from the upper pic not from the canvas.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Tue, 22 May 2007 06:52:45 +0000

I agree with John on this. The portrait is amazing. It is near technically perfect. As for John’s comment about painting metal, he has a point. It reminds me of all those budding amateur artists that can sketch beautiful horse heads but not much else. But, outside of the commercial crap, which most likely pays his way, the guy has proved he can do the intimate stuff.

By: gquaglia

gquaglia — Tue, 22 May 2007 06:11:33 +0000

#5 I agree, the same applies to me.

By: Mac Guy

Mac Guy — Tue, 22 May 2007 05:55:18 +0000

I was going to say her left eye didn’t look natural, particularly in the corner closest to the nose. Looks like the pink bled onto the white of her eye.

By: Erik Blazynski

Erik Blazynski — Tue, 22 May 2007 05:03:49 +0000

He gives her perfectly white teeth and then a black one in the back? seems odd. But if you were going to fake such a thing don’t you think that he would go through the trouble of fixing up the black tooth?

Me thinks that he air brushed a photo. I’d have to see this with my own two eyes to believe it.

By: John C Dvorak

John C Dvorak — Tue, 22 May 2007 03:54:53 +0000

There are plenty of artists with a narrow view of what constitutes “art.” Generally speaking whatever art “is” centers around them. A bigger question to my way of thinking is to ask if THIS is art or is it craftsmanship? And when do lame pictures of jets constitute art anyway?

If this is genuine, then it pushes the boundaries of mock photographic reality. Now if it is actually a photograph that has added errors, it may be a debate ploy regarding photography versus whatever you call this sort of creation.

And if photography is not art then why copy the photographic “look” and call that art rather than invent a new perspective that cannot be captured by photography. It seems weird. Something is amiss.

The kicker for me is the following…where are other examples of this extreme realism by the guy? His Eagles are crummy by comparison and everything else is mostly metal, chrome and other inanimate objects. Now he does this face to perfection out of the blue. Come on. What’s wrong with this picture indeed.

He shows one other hyper-realistic picture if you dig deep enough but what about this one done around the same time:

Does this look even reasonably good compared to the face pic?

Furthermore he brags on the site about winning the 1988 National Airbrush Excellence Award, Look up National Airbrush Excellence Award on Google and he is the only guy cited (and only cited by himself) and there are no other references to this award. So who gives out this award and where is their website and has nobody else won it? Where are his other awards?

This guy has talent but so do a lot of other people.