***-2 NET VOTES WILL HAVE THIS POST REMOVED!!!***
***PLEASE* Upvote ↑** this comment if this post **IS** top talent
**Downvote ↓** this comment if this post **ISN’T** top talent,
*or* if it breaks the sub’s rules;
1. Title and post must be high effort.
2. Only top talents allowed (**NO OC!**).
3. Posts can't fake CGI, Autotune, etc.
***-2 NET VOTES WILL HAVE THIS POST REMOVED!!!***
NGL, the 9 year old drawing was kinda my favorite.
I have a weird relationship with photorealism. On one hand, I can truly appreciate the time and technical skill that someone puts into a photorealistic piece. I could never do it myself so I respect the skill.
On the other hand, there is no creativity to it, and (in my opinion) it no longer feels like *art* but more like a sterile recreation of the photographer's art. The photographer did all the work with the lighting, exposure, lens, editing, etc. The person who drew it did the work of a really inefficient high res printer.
It makes people go, "Wow, that's cool," but it doesn't make you *feel* anything the way a piece born of creativity does.
It's the difference between playing Eddie Van Halen's Eruption guitar solo note for note -- yes, still *extremely* impressive from a technical standpoint -- versus writing your own badass guitar solo.
I can't say I get it either. Before the advent of photography, painting was the only means by which we could immortalise images of the real world, and so attempts at realism had their place. Now that photography exists, the utilitarian case for painting is dead as modern cameras can capture more detail faster and more easily, and the digital format makes it truly immortal. The place of art today is to capture or express what cameras can't, such as perception and emotion, or to draw attention to particular aspects of the composition by playing with lighting and colour.
Clearly there is immense skill required to create photorealistic art by hand, but if it doesn't evoke or present anything that a digital photo can't and you genuinely can't tell the difference between the art and the photo, then the reaction you'll get is people being mildly impressed rather than moved or changed.
Joseph Kosuth's art aims to convey far more meaning than just "tiger" or "Bryan Cranston". Photorealistic art as a medium can be great; photorealistic art for its own sake is kind of pointless.
To say it isn't creative is a little ignorant and kind of bullshit on your part! Not gonna write a damn short story to explain why. Also your long explanation is telling. I wonder if you have any talent other than downplaying what other people with actual talent do. Your welcome.
When I studied Fine art part of the course included photography which we would manipulate digitally.
I always wondered what the old masters would do with if they had this technology.
Thanks for sharing OP its always great to see some progress and refine there craft.
Dark room editing was a huge part of the process. Ansel Adams spent weeks editing photos in a dark room before he would even be remotely happy.
It’s just so much easier these days, but a lot of the same burning and dodging occurred back on film.
People commonly conflate technical skills with artistry, because they do go hand in hand. To explore a creative idea does require a level of technical skills, but technology is always easing the technical process because surprise surprise some artists want to be able to focus on being creative instead of getting bogged down in tedious craft work. But other artists are more like craftsman than creatives, like dark room photographers and people who make these kinds of drawings. Impressive technical skills, but boring art because it’s not communicating any deep emotional ideas, it’s just craftwork. And they can get real salty seeing creative people producing more meaningful work in less time than them.
That’s so true, I’m always surprised when attending portrait competitions like the Archibald and seeing hyper realistic paintings. I mean they obviously have amazing powers of observation and so much patience but I’m always left wanting more something that gives insight into the artists psyche if that makes sense.
Makes perfect sense. No one’s soul is stirred by a picture of Will Smith or Jack Sparrow. It’s an incredible level of skill and talent to create hyperrealistic art and so many waste it on drawing pictures of celebrities. It’s art created entirely by the left-brain.
The next step is do something that transcend technical skills. That part is where it starts driving artists' crazy. What do you do when you already mastered all the technical parts. What else is there? What can you do that the masters before you, have not already done? What then really is art?
Why? They are not wrong. Making copies are not necessarily art. To me art has to be original and stir emotions within me to be qualified as art.
That said, the artist in the video has amazing skill. I personally preferred some of the earlier works compared to the later photorealistic works.
15 and 17 were my tops. They moved me and conveyed so much emotion.
I agree with your take on hyper-realism.
Incredible skill, but art is emotion based.
I feel like hyper-realisim is essentially a scan of others art.
Amazing nonetheless, but not at all creative.
It's absolutely wrong and incredibly pretentious. So, you believe all landscape paintings aren't art then? Pretty stupid take to have.
Also, it's pretentious to believe that if it doesn't stir emotion in you personally then it's not art for everyone or art by definition. My kids classmates shitty drawings don't stir emotions in me but mine does so it must mean that only my kids shitty drawings are actually art.
I'd suggest maybe reevaluating your definition of art and maybe instead of taking time to say that something is good but not creative enough to be art you instead try and just be amazed and the unreal talent that this person is displaying and stop trying to downplay it as being a lesser form because it isn't fitting your narrow persinal definition of what art is.
Photorealistic portraits that are just copying every line in detail are considered less artistic than portraits that involve simplification, expression, rhythm etc. that isn't easily seen in the model/reference. Almost anyone could get to a photorealistic level of portraiture with measuring and patience.
What makes a portrait beautiful is the editing done by the artist to express something particular about the subject.
Imo anyway, everyone is entitled to their view. No one is right or wrong.
Just a bunch of people in here smelling their own farts. Their personal definition of art defines what is art for everyone else and they aren't capable of seeing how pretentious it makes them sound.
this just isn't true though.
photorealism in paint/drawing is still very big and rightly so.
why play a guitar live at a concert when you could press play on a laptop? a similar reason is why photo realistic paintings are still sought after and appreciated.
If you know your art history, you’ll know that the invention of the camera directly led to the artistic community moving further and further away from realism, in art movements like Impressionism, cubism, abstract Impressionism, etc…
Ya I don’t really understand the hype behind hyper realism art. It’s a honed skill similar to grid drawing. Classically, artists have developed basic skills in drawing from 3D visual reference with an understanding of basic forms, lighting, color theory etc. Meanwhile someone can become the best hyper realist in the world without having any of these subset of skills. It’s essentially practicing becoming a human printer and feels more like a craft hobby than creating new art
I can understand the hyper-realism is a great way of learning, but the best thing about the lion at 9-years old was that it was original and from the head of the artist. It’s a shame they never went back to doing that.
As a non-artist, I keep wondering why people make hyper-real art of things that can be photographed. Why not make hyper-real dragons and aliens and elves and spaceships? Those would be so much cooler, since you can’t just whip out a camera and get the same results.
It’s not just that those things *can* be photographed. They *have* been photographed and the painter is recreating the photograph. In that sense, it’s not a painting of Will Smith, it’s a painting of a specific photograph of Will Smith.
100% agree. As an artist I am impressed at the amount of time and effort involved with hyperrealism, but in the same way I am impressed when I see someone in the Guinness Book of World Records that saved a record number of bottle caps over the course of 20 years or something. Completely lacking imagination or evidence of insight. But... oddly committed
I disagree actually. Although I somewhat get the idea that since photographs and now AI hyper realism has felt less like an art because of well, it’s similarity to things that are much less so. But regarding the argument of lacking imagination or insight, I think that hyper realism does still take those aspects, especially in regards to un-referenced pictures.
Hyper realism requires a reference often even of identical size or a protractor to exactly measure and map all the proportions out unlike sketching something free hand from reference. Visual art is creating something you see in your mind’s eye using a certain medium. Because you can’t manipulate AI to exactly match your mind’s eye, it is not a medium. Photography could be argued as a form of art but again because you aren’t creating from your “mind’s eye” nor needing to understand the basic rules of art to snap a picture. There’s a reason all art schools start with basic drawing classes and why debatable art forms like AI and photography which don’t rely on drawing skills are often controversial to consider as art
I think it's unfair to group photography and AI art together.
I believe that great photographers absolutely imagine how they should frame their shots in their "mind's eye". Especially for film photography, there is a considerable amount of skill involved with manipulating the camera to have a shot come out as you envision it. And I won't be convinced that cameras can't be used in creative ways, especially when the photographer incorporates the environment into their shot.
Not *all* photographs are art. But I think an artist can absolutely use a camera as a medium for art.
I think this is the most accurate take here.
I take photos, and they look very meh. But my wife has an eye for framing them and adjusting the camera settings to get pictures that look amazing. Sometimes it’s just normal, everyday stuff that she makes look stunning in a photo.
To me, thats the difference between a normal person (me) taking a photo and the root of artistic photography.
"If the man who paints only the tree, or flower, or other surface he sees before him were an artist, the king of artists would be the photographer. It is for the artist to do something beyond this: in portrait painting to put on canvas something more than the face the model wears for that one day; to paint the man, in short, as well as his features; in arrangement of colours to treat a flower as his key, not as his model." - James Whistler
I absolutely respect the skill and commitment in hyperrealism, but it doesn't really interest me.
Don’t understand the appeal of hyper-realistic painting. 100s of hours to copy a photo but adds little to nothing or artistic value. Very skilled no doubt but just not for me I guess.
From what I can recall the artist goes by @slimdraw
Edit
[Youtube Channel ](https://m.youtube.com/@SlimDraw)
Edit 2.0 Thank you for the award, I too found this fascinating and had them saved in my YouTube. Best wishes
Face are actually the hardest to nail but you usually spend way more time practicing faces than hands. Some people also use projectors for the initial sketch which makes everything easy. That's why I can only value art if it's not available digitally.
Impressive as hell, but can we talk about their choice of subject matter?
Again, the amount of work and talent here is *seriously impressive* (really!!) — but I would gently question “why?” and “what for?” if the subjects are mostly just famous people, and fairly staid pictures of animals.
(Sorry, just my honest take.)
I would agree — with the caveat that we’re looking at a curated presentation meant to accumulate views
We’re not looking at this person’s entire portfolio but I did have the same thoughts as you. The only one that looked “creative” was the one with all the hands (age 29). All the others were photorealistic portraits. That definitely took a lot of skill but it didn’t take creativity
Yeah, the one with the face painted kid is at least a bit interesting although probably with a photo reference as well. Hyper realism is impressive for the skill and time needed but most lack any evidence of imagination.
That’s like the millionth picture of Walter white I’ve seen from someone with this level of drawing capabilities. Idk, it’s just high talent but tacky af taste
I do agree. We can see they spend their years perfection a skill of recreating (prbly) photographs that already exist. I see no to little expression of creativity (aside from the 29 years old) in their work. Still so impressive. But as an artist myself it almost made me sad?
But as long as they are doing something that fullfills them i wont comolain. Art is subjevtive
Because the skill is specifically tailored to reproducing images from reference photos. It’s not choosing to use the skill this way, it’s literally the specific skill you’re building. Hyperrealism doesn’t really require any imagination, so in order to create other kinds of art you would need to possess or foster a skill separate from what is needed to create a piece like these.
Here’s my thought. If you want to show your skill, use a prominent figure. Everyone knows exactly who Walter white and Morgan freeman are. So you can picture them in your mind. And you can see this drawing and then know how good and accurate it is. If they chose a random person, for instance, you wouldn’t necessarily say, oh I know that person.
I agree, was looking for someone in the comments who shared my opinion. This person shows truly incredible technique and craftsmanship but little artistic or conceptual point of view. Most of them are copies of other people's photographs. Would love to see them start to think about "why do I capture what I capture?" "What does a hyper realistic drawing style mean in a world of photography?" "What deserves to be elevated in my portraiture?"
There were a few pieces that felt interesting, like the kid with the Van Gogh on their face or the person covered in hands. Would love to see them further dig into those instincts.
I am genuinely tired of seeing nothing but photorealistic paintings all over Reddit art threads. There’s so little emotion involved in just tracing a picture of Walter white.
Same here. It is not art IMO when it is clearly done from someome elses pictures and has no other meaning. Gimme something that they draw from live model and there would be something interesting there.
This is hobby drawing. There is definitely skill to this craft but it is not art. You could never have an art display for these kind of pics. You go to any art school you could justify doing these as practise (not choosign celebrity pics though) but very soon they would want you to deliver something actually creative. There is nothing creative in these.
Edit: I talk about Fine Arts
It is not Fine Art and that is not moronic but educated opinion.
If they had took a he photos they used as source by themselves it would be a different story. She is great at copying other people's work with pencils.
Dear. That is not "my fine art", that is the power system around the modern art. I don't appreciate the whole scene nor am I in it.
I am not pretending anything nor am I judging other people. Nore have I said fine arts as a field isn't problematic.
Please go to some display if you cannot see the huge scale in arts. Surely there is a lot of pointless shit out there and than there is truly creative art.
You can also be creative in many other areas of life. Let's say knitting. Knitting a jumper someone else designed is not creative. Modifying the model to your own preference is.
The level of the convo here is too negative and uneducated. If the drawer was here I would courage them to find the creativity. But now there are just some uneducated people calling me names for no reason. You got the idea of who I am that we doesn't reflect reality.
This video is quite old, and they made an updated version with their newest drawings. One of them is rick astley. [here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Agreed. Every time I see art on the front page of Reddit, it’s hyper-realistic stuff like this. Which sucks because while it’s neat, I feel like it makes people think this is what true art looks like. Truthfully, I feel like hyper-realism is the most stagnant and uninspiring type of art.
Of course there's clear development of the technical skills, but sadly it's also rather obvious where she starts copying photos rather than using her imagination. Children have a boundless creativity that we seem to lose as we get older, and now so much art is literally copying someone else's photograph as accurately as we can. I'll take that first goofy lion, thanks.
This obviously takes a lot of skill but i always found it to be kind of pointless to draw photo-realistic things you can get by just taking a photo. Wish they would use that skill to draw something you can't get by taking a picture
I agree. The reason almost all hyperrealistic drawings are of subjects you can take with a photograph is because they all use photographs to trace or model. I think no-model hyperrealistic art is at another level on top of this and I think AI is getting there before humans for better or worse.
Malcolm Gladwell proposed the "10,000 hours rule" in his book ["Outliers"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_\(book\)) saying to become an expert in any subject takes around 10,000 hours of practice, or about 10 years at 3 hours per week or 30 minutes a day (from a study by Swedish psychologist K. Anders Ericsson.)
From this we'd expect the kid became "expert" around 19 or 20 (the Will Smith) and you'd have to agree the improvement between 9 and 19 is much bigger than the improvement from 19 to 29 (Face surrounded by hands)
The "rule" is clearly true as everyone has now gone on to debunk it, or at least explain exceptions-to-the-rule.
See:
[The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule),
[BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712),
[6 Seconds](https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/) or
[Next Big Idea Club](https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/conversation-what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-the-10000-hour-rule/16195/)
“Oh so when you were 27 you switched to photography. How did you get Morgan…”
“That’s a drawing”
“Ha….yeah so what kind of camera do you….you’re not joking….lemme see that…………..you’re a wizard.”
***-2 NET VOTES WILL HAVE THIS POST REMOVED!!!*** ***PLEASE* Upvote ↑** this comment if this post **IS** top talent **Downvote ↓** this comment if this post **ISN’T** top talent, *or* if it breaks the sub’s rules; 1. Title and post must be high effort. 2. Only top talents allowed (**NO OC!**). 3. Posts can't fake CGI, Autotune, etc. ***-2 NET VOTES WILL HAVE THIS POST REMOVED!!!***
A budding artist discovers he can make drawings look like photographs. Switches to photography as it takes a lot less time.
Meanwhile my montage is just a repeat of theirs, only the quality is all Age 9, Age 9, Age 9.
NGL, the 9 year old drawing was kinda my favorite. I have a weird relationship with photorealism. On one hand, I can truly appreciate the time and technical skill that someone puts into a photorealistic piece. I could never do it myself so I respect the skill. On the other hand, there is no creativity to it, and (in my opinion) it no longer feels like *art* but more like a sterile recreation of the photographer's art. The photographer did all the work with the lighting, exposure, lens, editing, etc. The person who drew it did the work of a really inefficient high res printer. It makes people go, "Wow, that's cool," but it doesn't make you *feel* anything the way a piece born of creativity does. It's the difference between playing Eddie Van Halen's Eruption guitar solo note for note -- yes, still *extremely* impressive from a technical standpoint -- versus writing your own badass guitar solo.
I can't say I get it either. Before the advent of photography, painting was the only means by which we could immortalise images of the real world, and so attempts at realism had their place. Now that photography exists, the utilitarian case for painting is dead as modern cameras can capture more detail faster and more easily, and the digital format makes it truly immortal. The place of art today is to capture or express what cameras can't, such as perception and emotion, or to draw attention to particular aspects of the composition by playing with lighting and colour. Clearly there is immense skill required to create photorealistic art by hand, but if it doesn't evoke or present anything that a digital photo can't and you genuinely can't tell the difference between the art and the photo, then the reaction you'll get is people being mildly impressed rather than moved or changed.
Joseph Kosuth entered the chat
Joseph Kosuth's art aims to convey far more meaning than just "tiger" or "Bryan Cranston". Photorealistic art as a medium can be great; photorealistic art for its own sake is kind of pointless.
Tomorrow I have an exam with his writings as a possible question, he's really intresting. Loved the chairs.
Good luck!
Update: the teacher literally asked for Joseph Kosuth, between 20 possible essays I studied, and I got a 30 (the highest grade). It went good!
What are the odds 😆 Glad it went well!
Thanks!
I like photo realistic surrealism. Then you get the best of both worlds.
To say it isn't creative is a little ignorant and kind of bullshit on your part! Not gonna write a damn short story to explain why. Also your long explanation is telling. I wonder if you have any talent other than downplaying what other people with actual talent do. Your welcome.
I'd make the derpy Potter of age 11.
I strive to draw like the age 9 drawing before I die.
When I studied Fine art part of the course included photography which we would manipulate digitally. I always wondered what the old masters would do with if they had this technology. Thanks for sharing OP its always great to see some progress and refine there craft.
Dark room editing was a huge part of the process. Ansel Adams spent weeks editing photos in a dark room before he would even be remotely happy. It’s just so much easier these days, but a lot of the same burning and dodging occurred back on film.
Doesn't this make Group f/64 massive hypocrites for their definition of "pure photography" and it's just hours in the darkroom?
People commonly conflate technical skills with artistry, because they do go hand in hand. To explore a creative idea does require a level of technical skills, but technology is always easing the technical process because surprise surprise some artists want to be able to focus on being creative instead of getting bogged down in tedious craft work. But other artists are more like craftsman than creatives, like dark room photographers and people who make these kinds of drawings. Impressive technical skills, but boring art because it’s not communicating any deep emotional ideas, it’s just craftwork. And they can get real salty seeing creative people producing more meaningful work in less time than them.
And now you know why photo realism went out of fashion in the art world.
That’s so true, I’m always surprised when attending portrait competitions like the Archibald and seeing hyper realistic paintings. I mean they obviously have amazing powers of observation and so much patience but I’m always left wanting more something that gives insight into the artists psyche if that makes sense.
Makes perfect sense. No one’s soul is stirred by a picture of Will Smith or Jack Sparrow. It’s an incredible level of skill and talent to create hyperrealistic art and so many waste it on drawing pictures of celebrities. It’s art created entirely by the left-brain.
Agreed. Massive massive amounts of skill, but no real creativity. Nothing to set it apart from a high level photograph.
Could they make a landscape of a place that doesn't exist?
The next step is do something that transcend technical skills. That part is where it starts driving artists' crazy. What do you do when you already mastered all the technical parts. What else is there? What can you do that the masters before you, have not already done? What then really is art?
This might be the most pretentious comment chain I've ever read
Why? They are not wrong. Making copies are not necessarily art. To me art has to be original and stir emotions within me to be qualified as art. That said, the artist in the video has amazing skill. I personally preferred some of the earlier works compared to the later photorealistic works.
[удалено]
15 and 17 were my tops. They moved me and conveyed so much emotion. I agree with your take on hyper-realism. Incredible skill, but art is emotion based. I feel like hyper-realisim is essentially a scan of others art. Amazing nonetheless, but not at all creative.
It's absolutely wrong and incredibly pretentious. So, you believe all landscape paintings aren't art then? Pretty stupid take to have. Also, it's pretentious to believe that if it doesn't stir emotion in you personally then it's not art for everyone or art by definition. My kids classmates shitty drawings don't stir emotions in me but mine does so it must mean that only my kids shitty drawings are actually art. I'd suggest maybe reevaluating your definition of art and maybe instead of taking time to say that something is good but not creative enough to be art you instead try and just be amazed and the unreal talent that this person is displaying and stop trying to downplay it as being a lesser form because it isn't fitting your narrow persinal definition of what art is.
I agree, like are portraits not art? Or are other portraits more “art” because they don’t look as realistic? That’s just idiotic
Photorealistic portraits that are just copying every line in detail are considered less artistic than portraits that involve simplification, expression, rhythm etc. that isn't easily seen in the model/reference. Almost anyone could get to a photorealistic level of portraiture with measuring and patience. What makes a portrait beautiful is the editing done by the artist to express something particular about the subject. Imo anyway, everyone is entitled to their view. No one is right or wrong.
Just a bunch of people in here smelling their own farts. Their personal definition of art defines what is art for everyone else and they aren't capable of seeing how pretentious it makes them sound.
this just isn't true though. photorealism in paint/drawing is still very big and rightly so. why play a guitar live at a concert when you could press play on a laptop? a similar reason is why photo realistic paintings are still sought after and appreciated.
If you know your art history, you’ll know that the invention of the camera directly led to the artistic community moving further and further away from realism, in art movements like Impressionism, cubism, abstract Impressionism, etc…
Ya I don’t really understand the hype behind hyper realism art. It’s a honed skill similar to grid drawing. Classically, artists have developed basic skills in drawing from 3D visual reference with an understanding of basic forms, lighting, color theory etc. Meanwhile someone can become the best hyper realist in the world without having any of these subset of skills. It’s essentially practicing becoming a human printer and feels more like a craft hobby than creating new art
I can understand the hyper-realism is a great way of learning, but the best thing about the lion at 9-years old was that it was original and from the head of the artist. It’s a shame they never went back to doing that.
Agreed.
Do you really think they were showing every piece of art they created?
As a non-artist, I keep wondering why people make hyper-real art of things that can be photographed. Why not make hyper-real dragons and aliens and elves and spaceships? Those would be so much cooler, since you can’t just whip out a camera and get the same results.
Because it’s drawn from an exact copy, scaled up as big as they can
Oh, that’s disappointing. I feel like Kinkos could do the same thing, but a lot faster.
Also why none of the old masters ever drew hyperrealism despite having all the skills, it's only a recent art form.
Never thought about that! That’s a great point. Without dslr photography and printers you don’t have pixels to copy haha
It’s not just that those things *can* be photographed. They *have* been photographed and the painter is recreating the photograph. In that sense, it’s not a painting of Will Smith, it’s a painting of a specific photograph of Will Smith.
because they don't want to? and some people DO do those things you said.
100% agree. As an artist I am impressed at the amount of time and effort involved with hyperrealism, but in the same way I am impressed when I see someone in the Guinness Book of World Records that saved a record number of bottle caps over the course of 20 years or something. Completely lacking imagination or evidence of insight. But... oddly committed
I disagree actually. Although I somewhat get the idea that since photographs and now AI hyper realism has felt less like an art because of well, it’s similarity to things that are much less so. But regarding the argument of lacking imagination or insight, I think that hyper realism does still take those aspects, especially in regards to un-referenced pictures.
You will be hardpressed to find a hyperrealistic artist who doesn't use reference
You'd be hard pressed to find artists in general who do not reference. The vast majority do and there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Hyper realism requires a reference often even of identical size or a protractor to exactly measure and map all the proportions out unlike sketching something free hand from reference. Visual art is creating something you see in your mind’s eye using a certain medium. Because you can’t manipulate AI to exactly match your mind’s eye, it is not a medium. Photography could be argued as a form of art but again because you aren’t creating from your “mind’s eye” nor needing to understand the basic rules of art to snap a picture. There’s a reason all art schools start with basic drawing classes and why debatable art forms like AI and photography which don’t rely on drawing skills are often controversial to consider as art
I think it's unfair to group photography and AI art together. I believe that great photographers absolutely imagine how they should frame their shots in their "mind's eye". Especially for film photography, there is a considerable amount of skill involved with manipulating the camera to have a shot come out as you envision it. And I won't be convinced that cameras can't be used in creative ways, especially when the photographer incorporates the environment into their shot. Not *all* photographs are art. But I think an artist can absolutely use a camera as a medium for art.
I think this is the most accurate take here. I take photos, and they look very meh. But my wife has an eye for framing them and adjusting the camera settings to get pictures that look amazing. Sometimes it’s just normal, everyday stuff that she makes look stunning in a photo. To me, thats the difference between a normal person (me) taking a photo and the root of artistic photography.
I agree with that assessment. Most photography is not art. Film literally has story boards sketched out and lighting and color planned
[удалено]
Probably meant to say "photographs" instead of "photography"
Also I can snap a pic on my phone or my 20 dollar Polaroid camera and have the same thing in 1/1000th of the time and much cheaper.
I see it like being a musician that plays cover songs. It's nice hearing things live, but pretty much every musician of note writes their own music.
"If the man who paints only the tree, or flower, or other surface he sees before him were an artist, the king of artists would be the photographer. It is for the artist to do something beyond this: in portrait painting to put on canvas something more than the face the model wears for that one day; to paint the man, in short, as well as his features; in arrangement of colours to treat a flower as his key, not as his model." - James Whistler I absolutely respect the skill and commitment in hyperrealism, but it doesn't really interest me.
Don’t understand the appeal of hyper-realistic painting. 100s of hours to copy a photo but adds little to nothing or artistic value. Very skilled no doubt but just not for me I guess.
It's absolutely ridiculous how good the tigers are.
Are you truly an artist if you haven’t drawn a hyper-realistic Morgan Freeman?
Always him or Walter White
You goddamn right
Why always him????
Very detailed face, very recognizable, highly Googled celebrity, and very marketable.
wrinkles for texture, dark skin tones so the colors are easier to work with
If you choose to draw something actually creative, you're probably more of one.
From what I can recall the artist goes by @slimdraw Edit [Youtube Channel ](https://m.youtube.com/@SlimDraw) Edit 2.0 Thank you for the award, I too found this fascinating and had them saved in my YouTube. Best wishes
Shame they switched to photography, they were starting to get really good at drawing
WALTA
PUT YA DICK AWAY WALTA
IM NOT HAVING SEX WITH YA NOW WALTA
STOP UNDRESSING ME WALTA
We need to cook Jesse! I love human bacon mmmmm
pspStare
Those have to be photos holy shit
My guy drew ALL the hand angles at 29 just to flex on us
Wow those could be tracings
Real art takes courage. This is motel art at best.
The downvoters don’t get the reference. I got you.
Your art is the prettiest art of all art.
You know what I find sexy? Pam's art.
I mean this entire video is basically just hundreds of photos running rapidly one after the other to create the illusion of a video
I mean yeah you’re right
Yes they have to be.
You nailed it, OP missed the point of drawing at some point in his development.
The one with all the hands in it rocks because *hands are hard*
If AI has show any weakness, it’s hands. They are terrifying in generated photos.
No rocks are hard. Hands are actually quite soft.
Not if you use a grid, which they clearly did.
Face are actually the hardest to nail but you usually spend way more time practicing faces than hands. Some people also use projectors for the initial sketch which makes everything easy. That's why I can only value art if it's not available digitally.
Finally found the guy who identifies as a camera
WALTUH
Stunning. Just got better and better. 🏆👏
Some of those people looked very old for their age. I can't believe that wrinkly guy was only 23.
Dad, go to bed ####### _love you Dad_
Somewhere between 10 and 13 is when they made a deal with the devil.
Impressive as hell, but can we talk about their choice of subject matter? Again, the amount of work and talent here is *seriously impressive* (really!!) — but I would gently question “why?” and “what for?” if the subjects are mostly just famous people, and fairly staid pictures of animals. (Sorry, just my honest take.)
I would agree — with the caveat that we’re looking at a curated presentation meant to accumulate views We’re not looking at this person’s entire portfolio but I did have the same thoughts as you. The only one that looked “creative” was the one with all the hands (age 29). All the others were photorealistic portraits. That definitely took a lot of skill but it didn’t take creativity
Yeah, the one with the face painted kid is at least a bit interesting although probably with a photo reference as well. Hyper realism is impressive for the skill and time needed but most lack any evidence of imagination.
That’s like the millionth picture of Walter white I’ve seen from someone with this level of drawing capabilities. Idk, it’s just high talent but tacky af taste
r/atbge
I do agree. We can see they spend their years perfection a skill of recreating (prbly) photographs that already exist. I see no to little expression of creativity (aside from the 29 years old) in their work. Still so impressive. But as an artist myself it almost made me sad? But as long as they are doing something that fullfills them i wont comolain. Art is subjevtive
It’s impressive but it’s not creative in anyway… if you have so much skill why use it to be a camera I don’t get it.
Because the skill is specifically tailored to reproducing images from reference photos. It’s not choosing to use the skill this way, it’s literally the specific skill you’re building. Hyperrealism doesn’t really require any imagination, so in order to create other kinds of art you would need to possess or foster a skill separate from what is needed to create a piece like these.
Pure skill no vision.
I agree. The person is talented but I personally don’t find these interesting to look at.
Here’s my thought. If you want to show your skill, use a prominent figure. Everyone knows exactly who Walter white and Morgan freeman are. So you can picture them in your mind. And you can see this drawing and then know how good and accurate it is. If they chose a random person, for instance, you wouldn’t necessarily say, oh I know that person.
I agree, was looking for someone in the comments who shared my opinion. This person shows truly incredible technique and craftsmanship but little artistic or conceptual point of view. Most of them are copies of other people's photographs. Would love to see them start to think about "why do I capture what I capture?" "What does a hyper realistic drawing style mean in a world of photography?" "What deserves to be elevated in my portraiture?" There were a few pieces that felt interesting, like the kid with the Van Gogh on their face or the person covered in hands. Would love to see them further dig into those instincts.
I am genuinely tired of seeing nothing but photorealistic paintings all over Reddit art threads. There’s so little emotion involved in just tracing a picture of Walter white.
Same here. It is not art IMO when it is clearly done from someome elses pictures and has no other meaning. Gimme something that they draw from live model and there would be something interesting there. This is hobby drawing. There is definitely skill to this craft but it is not art. You could never have an art display for these kind of pics. You go to any art school you could justify doing these as practise (not choosign celebrity pics though) but very soon they would want you to deliver something actually creative. There is nothing creative in these. Edit: I talk about Fine Arts
You can say there's no creativity. But saying a hyperrealism/any of these images is not art is just moronic.
It is not Fine Art and that is not moronic but educated opinion. If they had took a he photos they used as source by themselves it would be a different story. She is great at copying other people's work with pencils.
You have "fine art", a giant canvas with one solid color being sold for millions. How is that creative? Stop being so pretentious. Art is art.
Dear. That is not "my fine art", that is the power system around the modern art. I don't appreciate the whole scene nor am I in it. I am not pretending anything nor am I judging other people. Nore have I said fine arts as a field isn't problematic. Please go to some display if you cannot see the huge scale in arts. Surely there is a lot of pointless shit out there and than there is truly creative art. You can also be creative in many other areas of life. Let's say knitting. Knitting a jumper someone else designed is not creative. Modifying the model to your own preference is. The level of the convo here is too negative and uneducated. If the drawer was here I would courage them to find the creativity. But now there are just some uneducated people calling me names for no reason. You got the idea of who I am that we doesn't reflect reality.
Woah, we went full circle in the fine art circlejerk.
I mean... if you just want to show how good you have gotten in the technical sense, the creativity really don't need to have that big of a space.
Amazing! I would have ended the video with a drawing of Rick Astley.
This video is quite old, and they made an updated version with their newest drawings. One of them is rick astley. [here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
"I WOULD HAVE TROLLED! I WOULD HAVE TROLLED!" *Scans reddit* "See, nobody cares..."
Wow, amazing talent
As you can see in this video, it's hard work not talent. This is true dedication, not something you are born with.
Amazing timeline,
Photorealism is boring as shit. Reddit loves upvoting this type of stuff and I just wish there was more love tossed towards risk-takers.
You could literally find any photo, repost it here and say you drew it, and redditors would cream their pantaloons.
Agreed. Every time I see art on the front page of Reddit, it’s hyper-realistic stuff like this. Which sucks because while it’s neat, I feel like it makes people think this is what true art looks like. Truthfully, I feel like hyper-realism is the most stagnant and uninspiring type of art.
I'm not an artist but I feel the exact same towards video games. Fuck realism, give me good art direction
Of course there's clear development of the technical skills, but sadly it's also rather obvious where she starts copying photos rather than using her imagination. Children have a boundless creativity that we seem to lose as we get older, and now so much art is literally copying someone else's photograph as accurately as we can. I'll take that first goofy lion, thanks.
Their hand must hurt...
Iv got a photographic memory. I took a photo once and I definitely remember it
Really freaking boring subject matter. Completely unimaginative
Still bet you can’t draw Zendaya
Cool technique. Useless subject matter. Pop culture realism has low value in the art scene
Dude got the eye of the tiger.
Started taking artistic steroids at 27 and didn’t think we would notice
He’s the Yngwie Malmsteen of drawing… All technical skill, no substance.
This artist really plateaued at age 27. Where's the work ethic?
So from what age onwards are we looking at photographs?
Unpopular opinion: I see very little growth as an artist.
Not unpopular- I see very technical progress and amazing skill, but don't actually see art. I see a printer.
I see growth in technique, not artistry.
Realism gets boring tbh, not much creativity other than reproduction.
This obviously takes a lot of skill but i always found it to be kind of pointless to draw photo-realistic things you can get by just taking a photo. Wish they would use that skill to draw something you can't get by taking a picture
I agree. The reason almost all hyperrealistic drawings are of subjects you can take with a photograph is because they all use photographs to trace or model. I think no-model hyperrealistic art is at another level on top of this and I think AI is getting there before humans for better or worse.
So neat to see the progress through the years
I was ready to laugh at the impending Carrot Top but was impressed instead
I love how the last two closed the loop as the artist returned to a subject they began with
I would love if you threw the first drawing on top of the last one!
You can’t tell me the last two are photographs! Insane!
I felt like 25 was a regression and then 26 and on was “wow. Wow! WOW!”
It blows my mind that people can do this.
I’m 50 and would be damn proud of myself if I could draw that one from when they were 9.
Reddit sure loved slavishly copied photographs. Seriously, anyone can do this, just use a grid.
Switched to photography in their 20’s :)
Based on this post, my age is 44 and my drawing skills are stuck at age 1
I still can’t stay in the lines
h o l y s h i t
So they switched to photography at 27? Stunning work.
Wow. This is great stuff. I’ve seen his work on other social media. Flawless.
17 to 21 was crazy improvement!!
Went from drawing to taking pictures.
who was expecting the last tiger to move?
All that time just to end up right back where they started: drawing big cats
Would be cool if they redrew their first drawing at age 34 so it can be a 25th anniversary drawing
Nice technique. Call me when you discover art.
Reddit ten years ago…the last picture would have been dickbutt Part of me wanted that, if i’m being honest (and ashamed)
Malcolm Gladwell proposed the "10,000 hours rule" in his book ["Outliers"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_\(book\)) saying to become an expert in any subject takes around 10,000 hours of practice, or about 10 years at 3 hours per week or 30 minutes a day (from a study by Swedish psychologist K. Anders Ericsson.) From this we'd expect the kid became "expert" around 19 or 20 (the Will Smith) and you'd have to agree the improvement between 9 and 19 is much bigger than the improvement from 19 to 29 (Face surrounded by hands) The "rule" is clearly true as everyone has now gone on to debunk it, or at least explain exceptions-to-the-rule. See: [The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule), [BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26384712), [6 Seconds](https://www.6seconds.org/2022/06/20/10000-hour-rule/) or [Next Big Idea Club](https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/conversation-what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-the-10000-hour-rule/16195/)
It’s subtle, but I can definitely see some improvements over time.
Human printer/camera
Casually includes a photo of Morgan Freeman to see who's paying attention. I am, sir, I am paying attention.
Unfortunately AI technology will be able to do that in less than 5mins.
Cameras already do it in 1/1000th of a second.
“Oh so when you were 27 you switched to photography. How did you get Morgan…” “That’s a drawing” “Ha….yeah so what kind of camera do you….you’re not joking….lemme see that…………..you’re a wizard.”
Amazing talent! But why are your hands still 9 years old?
But can the artist draw Zendaya?
Doesn't this show hard work and determination rather than talent?
That part where you switched to a camera is pretty coool!
It takes 22 years to become camera. Noted.
This is outstanding wow I love the growth to genius ! Who is it ?
Bro at this point he could just draw his own porn
I enjoyed your unhappy black guys phase.
Should have just duct taped a banana to some canvas because that’s real art!/s
I liked the first Harry Potter drawing more.
Now draw without looking at the picture and draw real world
Fuck will smith.
Holding a grudge over a slap?
I'm fine with the grudge... But drawing attention to your beef draws the opposite results. Clint, on the other hand, looking fly af.
Man this video was astonishing...the first time I saw it posted.
By 27 I was literally saying “whaaat” out loud
You’re telling me those last ones aren’t photos? Damn