Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Photographic... with a pencil  (Read 8889 times)
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« on: May 17, 2013, 09:25:51 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.dzimirsky.com/



I'm still digesting this.. so good it's almost hard to believe.

Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2013, 09:45:54 PM »
ReplyReply

It's amazing what some of these artists do.  I posted about a similar artist on my Facebook page a while back.  If I can find the post (unlikely since FB has no effective search function) I'll come back and link it here.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5727



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2013, 10:03:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Bert Monroy does some amazing photorealistic art, but this is just fabulous.  Thanks for sharing it!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2013, 04:07:43 AM »
ReplyReply

And there we run into the problem of definitions of "art".

I looked at the images first and was mightily impressed. Then I made the mistake of reading the Statement and it depressed both myself and the value of what I'd just been ooing and aahing at moments before. What friggin' crap! Remove the first two of the three paragraphs and it makes sense. Is such written nonsense really, really essential to the selling of a great skill?

Rob C
Logged

graeme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 282


« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2013, 05:07:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Well I'm sure they're very impressive but I feel like doing drawings from photos is usually a bit of an artistic dead end.

If you wanted a photograph of a subject you wouldn't take a photo of a drawing of that subject.

Not saying that photos can't be handy for reference but I'm sure that you get more interesting drawings from live interaction with the subject.

Graeme
Logged
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2013, 03:32:43 PM »
ReplyReply

For me, the exemplar of this genre (or tradition) is Chuck Close.

http://chuckclose.com/#/official-gallery

Cheers,

W
Logged
superduckz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2013, 12:37:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to date the sister of Steve Mills and had the chance to see his work in progress on a few occasions when he lived in North Florida.  Although he works in color and uses oil. Mind boggling.  Best I've ever seen at he genre. http://www.stevemillsart.com/
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 12:40:52 PM by superduckz » Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2013, 04:46:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Dzimirsky works from photographs to help make his drawings look like the photographs he's copying, which seems entirely pointless to me. What he's doing is mimicry, not art.
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074


« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2013, 09:21:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I should start taking pictures of drawings, blow them up, and market them as 'drawing realistic' art. It might be fun to add a tilt-shift effects to simulate depth of field.

I 'get' Chuck Close. He suffers from a condition known as "face blindness." Oliver Sacks does too; he wrote a fascinating book on the subject—The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat. I also have this condition, but to a lesser extent.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 09:28:45 PM by BobDavid » Logged
Eddy M
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2013, 02:53:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Dzimirsky works from photographs to help make his drawings look like the photographs he's copying, which seems entirely pointless to me. What he's doing is mimicry, not art.

How about the art of mimicry? Not everybody can do what he does. I'm pretty confident that I can't do it.
Logged
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2013, 03:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

How about the art of mimicry? Not everybody can do what he does. I'm pretty confident that I can't do it.

The art is not in the mimicry.

Peter
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5714



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2013, 07:58:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone noticed who started this thread? I bet Fred is on just another medium-format-is-dead crusade...this time the "killer" is not D800, but a lowly pencil! Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6199



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2013, 11:29:56 AM »
ReplyReply

If what you want is a photograph, why settle for a pencil drawing?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5714



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2013, 12:48:57 PM »
ReplyReply

If what you want is a photograph, why settle for a pencil drawing?

Precisely because it is not a photograph! A drawing is unique, unlike photograph.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6199



WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2013, 12:59:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Really? All you have to do to make a photograph unique is make one print and destroy the negative or the file. I see plenty of photographers doing that on a partial basis by "editioning" their prints to make them more precious. In fact, Brett Weston is one of the guilty ones.

By the way, Charles Sheeler was making photographically perfect paintings way back there. The interesting thing about Sheeler is that he was both a very fine painter and a very fine photographer.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 01:01:54 PM by RSL » Logged

BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074


« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2013, 09:30:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Really? All you have to do to make a photograph unique is make one print and destroy the negative or the file. I see plenty of photographers doing that on a partial basis by "editioning" their prints to make them more precious. In fact, Brett Weston is one of the guilty ones.

By the way, Charles Sheeler was making photographically perfect paintings way back there. The interesting thing about Sheeler is that he was both a very fine painter and a very fine photographer.

Agreed
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2013, 06:15:55 AM »
ReplyReply

What interests me is what happens when I look at these images. I find that they provide a specific aesthetic response that is different to (by which I don't mean better than) what can be had from images that are unambiguously paintings/drawings, or unambiguously photographs.  There is a fine Chuck Close in the National Gallery of Australia that I look at often. One way of putting it would be that I see painting (or drawing) fighting back against photography, which had a go at killing it in the 19th Century and forever diminished its scope, by appropriating photography's claim to meticulous representation of realilty, while retaining its own power of selection so there is nothing accidental in the image, no need ever to use Photoshop. The image is energised by the way it flips back and forward between photograph and drawing.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad