juxtapoz magazine’s top 20 featured photoreal artists of 2012

😯 childhood obsession taken to the Nth degree

some more of Paul Cadden’s work.

I would have said less than half of those were photoreal. The rest were very, very good but closer to 80’s Athena airbrushed posters.

The Alyssa Monks stuff is amazing.

shame larger pics can’t be viewed.

What’s the point?

Cos they can. (And no doubt you can’t).

What’s the point?

Its deliberately pointless – superficial imagery rendered in cold methodical detail. Thats not a criticism – its what the point is – the pointlessness.

Totally pointless but damn amazing

amazing really, . . . but i’d like to see all that talent and obvious patience at work on something other than just copying photos . . .

i’d like to see all that talent and obvious patience at work on something other than just copying photos . . .

I agree

They could use this talent to create some interesting or incongruous jxtapositions

Hilo Chen’s stuff may appeal to a certain section of the STW demographic:

They could use this talent to create some interesting or incongruous jxtapositions

But they are eschewing that and being tastefully banal instead

There’s a lot of that going about.

But they are eschewing that and being tastefully banal instead

They should publish a charity based magazine which promotes that view

The BP exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery has some impressive pieces.

This “what’s the point?” thinking really baffles me.
It’s technically mindblowing, and just because the subject matter appears banal it’s not art?

Could someone try to explain to me why this isn’t a valid art form please.

So are these actually hand reproductions of existing photos, or just photo shopped? Noticed a few have some odd perspectives/ mistakes in them, but could have been like that in the photo?

hand painted reproductions

It’s technically mindblowing, and just because the subject matter appears banal it’s not art?

no you misunderstand – its art about banality, it totally is art. But it has more in common with minimalism than Rubens

twenty seven months or so
you’ve been sizing up the planet
and looking at this early work
leant on the radiator to dry
I can’t say it looks like anything
but maybe you want it to
or perhaps when you began it
you had meant it to
so I ask you
is it a house?
‘No’
is it a mouse?
‘No’
is it a tortoise?
‘No’
well if it’s not any of those
what CAN it be?
and you inform me
that it is paint.

A Young Artist, by John Hegley (1990).

What’s the point?

I agree, what is the point in art?

I’d much rather see an unmade bed or a dead shark in a tank.

I’m a bit lost on the what’s the point aspect too.

That question could be aimed at absolutely any art whatsoever. It could be aimed at stunning photographs, multi-million pound renaissance classics, nice looking cars, fit girls, funny looking buildings… what’s the point?

This is just one area of art that is achieving impressively high levels of skill which is being celebrated there. It’s very, very good technical work that can make people go ‘wow!’ and making people stop, stare, think and discuss… well that’s what art is isn’t it?

You don’t have to like it but it’s hard to question the objective.

And another thing.. Most of those artists have deliberately chosen very challenging photos to copy. Steam on windows, smoke, wet plastic bags. These must be incredibly hard to reproduce. The skill in some of those drawings is astounding. That, if nothing else is worth the collection.

It’s art.

It doesn’t have to have a ‘point’.
You either get something from it or you don’t.

Well, it may be technically brilliant, but art is more than just technical expertise. There are a number of other aspects to art too, we might discuss what else, but i would out impact, imagination and inovation up there at least

It’s art.

It doesn’t have to have a ‘point’.
You either get something from it or you don’t.

On that basis a snail could be art, it isn’t.

what makes it “technically brilliant”? copying colours, shapes and tones from a flat piece of paper is far easier and less challenging that drawing/painting accurately from life with it’s problems of changing light, head movement, stereoscopic vision, depth perception etc. Let alone that the subject could be moving. Technically boring if you ask me!

what makes it “technically brilliant”?

they look like real life.

they look like a real life photo you mean. Great! real life isn’t flat and 2D!

You know for a fact that they all copy photos?

Art provokes discussion… hmmm…

well, they mostly look like they have optical “mistakes” that you get from lenses rather than eyes. If you want it to look like a photo, just take a photo! it’s quicker ;D What they trying to prove? that they can use materials to copy a photo like other people that can use materials to copy a photo. So they all look the same? I guess I just don’t get it.

Snailist!

Anything that is thought of as art, is art.

It’s the only definition that works 😀

makes no difference does it? Your questions was ‘what makes them technically brilliant?’ and what makes them technically brilliant is that with some of them (and most of those are not the best examples I’ve seen), is that it takes an inordinate amount of skill to reproduce a photograph with a pencil. Unless of course you don’t think it’s that hard. I’ve tried doing it and I think it is.

What are they trying to prove? I dunno, that they’re really good at reproducing photosgraphs with a pencil? What are all those people riding around France trying to prove? That they’re really good at riding a bike around France? What’s the point in that?

What’s this guy trying to prove?

On that basis a snail could be art, it isn’t.

It’s a reaction against increasing use of cameras and abstract approaches, right?

makes no difference does it? Your questions was ‘what makes them technically brilliant?’ and what makes them technically brilliant is that with some of them (and most of those are not the best examples I’ve seen), is that it takes an inordinate amount of skill to reproduce a photograph with a pencil. Unless of course you don’t think it’s that hard. I’ve tried doing it and I think it is.

But another artist could produce as much or more art with one perfect pencil stroke. Or one clumsy one. It’s as much what’s absent in these highly detailed pictures as what’s present. There’s a complete absences of passion or expression, but that absence is interesting.

An absence of passion and expression? The best ones are full of both those things. Even incredibly technical work needs passion.

It takes massive amounts of passion and devotion to pull off a picture such as those listed. Some people are still scared to see a camera used in the production of art. It’s another tool in the bin and there is no diffinitve answer as to how a painting should be produced. As long as the works produced to satisfy the creator then its valid.