There’s something really unusual about the image above. Don’t click on this link until you’ve taken a hard look. I bet you won’t guess what it is.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Great talent.
But if it looks like a photo… what’s the point… just take a friggin’ photo!
36. “what’s the point… just take a friggin’ photo!”
Because the girl in the picture doesn’t exist.
“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.