[Closed] A rather talented 16 year old...

Great drawing.

Never really seen the point of photo realistic drawings.

Good though,, future forger 😉

Blimey, thats excellent.
😯

They have some photorealistic paintings in the Milwaukee art museum. They are about 10ft x 20ft. Absolutely gobsmacking, and not really possible with normal photo/print technology.

They are about 10ft x 20ft.

Impossible to say for sure, but I wonder if they are by the same artist as the ones I saw in a gallery in San Francisco. It's the size that makes me think they might be and yes they were gobsmacking.

Possibly, ISTR that was his thing. You could stand with your nose to the painting and see all kinds of tiny details, and the sheer volume of detail in the huge landscape was just remarkable. Cos in real life you never get to see wide angle views with loads of tiny details in, it messed with my mind a bit. In a good way.

I'm with Red Thunder.

Excellent, even astonishing skills, but why? Just take a photograph if that's what you want.

But, I repeat - excellent, even astonishing skills.

Just take a photograph if that's what you want.

Does this even look like a photograph?

Amazing skills... this is the kind of art that people who hate art like. Because it looks like it was made through [i]hard work[/i], and therefore legitimate 🙂

Plus it actually looks like what its supposed to be.

That's astonishing.

(and a great picture)

And it'll be basically worthless.

[url= http://www.artsumo.com/blog/post/4/They_Paid_What_Top_10_Absurd_Paintings_that_Sold_for_Millions/ ]Compared to this sh...[/url]

The art world is a crazy ****ed up place.

Definitely looks older than 16 to me.

Never really seen the point of photo realistic drawings.

I'm not sure drawing has to have 'a point' does it?

Excellent, even astonishing skills, but why? Just take a photograph if that's what you want.

Ever ride your bike in a loop? I mean if you only wanted to get to where you were already then why bother? (convoluted example) My guess would be that she enjoys doing this sort of artwork. Hell, she even managed to make money doing it...

[i]I'm not sure drawing has to have 'a point' does it?[/i]

Exactly. The point is, it's a photo-realistic drawing. Like all art you're allowed to like it, or not. Doesn't mean there's no point in it.

That really is amazing piece of work.
To come from a 16 year old makes it even more remarkable.
Realism/cubism/landscape oil/whatever. Good art is good art and must be appreciated for what it is.
I hope she goes on to produce much more.

that sort of art appeals to me, unmade beds not so much.

Just seen the documentary Tim's Vermeer, fascinating, thought the guy Tim was thoroughly likeable, a little bit mad in a good way.

I wonder is there a specific technique to doing that? Do you trace over a photo or a projection and put the details on top, or is it done entirely free hand?

I wish I had the patience to have a go

I hope she got an A* (or Irish equivalent) for Art!

Amazing, it's nothing like a photograph, apart from it's dimensional accuracy.

Jeez some people.

Loving this comment:

What I wouldn't give to have that kind of focus...in anything.

Oh look! A bird!

I wonder about the artist. I know a guy who does extremely accurate drawings, not quite up to that standard though. He is autistic, and finds a great pleasure in the accurate portrayal of reality. He did a drawing of a friends house and accurately portrayed the satellite dish and telephone wires. He refused to remove them, insisting they were a part of the house and he had to accurately represent reality.

coincidentally (?) the BP National Portrait Award exhibition starts today at the National Gallery.
I often go to this and I'm not an art fan by any stretch. I tend to look for two things - portraits that show incredible likeness and skill like the photo-realistic ones and those that have depth and emotion. In my opinion the two are mutually exclusive, but of equal merit.

I find that seriously impressive!

Is it done by copying a photograph? I don't know how people who do this kind of thing manage to get the accuracy in the image. Not just the subtle stuff, like tone, depth, shadow etc. but how they even manage to get the lines in the right place on the page so that the whole thing looks like a person and not Mr Potato Head which would be the result if I tried it!!

I'd love to see a time lapse of someone doing this to see how it is created. Wouldn't even know where to start!

Check it out on colossal.com.
She's won the competition for about the last four years in a row.
Even the stuff she was doing when she was thirteen is astounding!

So they're copied from photos? She's talented, sure, but I don't see how that makes her a "great artist".

Brings up some interesting issues. It's clearly amazing, but I'd rather have a Warhol on my wall than that any day of the week (even if they were both worthless)

[i]So they're copied from photos? She's talented, sure, but I don't see how that makes her a "great artist"[/i]

If they're other people's photos, I agree.

sweepy - Member
Plus it actually looks like what its supposed to be.

Really? Blimey. He's got such a small head. 😯

So they're copied from photos? She's talented, sure, but I don't see how that makes her a "great artist".

You're joking right?

How is it any different from drawing a model or a landscape or any inanimate object? Do you only class artists who draw from their imagination as "great"? You don't necessarily have to alter the subject in order to achieve greatness.

So they're copied from photos? She's talented, sure, but I don't see how that makes her a "great artist".

A lot of landscape/townscape artists during the renaissance would use a similar technique with a camera obscurer. It helped get the perspecive right and all the buildings in the correct place.

I suppose its a technique you have to master on the way to becoming a "great artist".

Even Picasso (or was it Dali?) did a lot of very "realistic" paintings before he moved on to the stuff for which we remember him for.

[i]Do you only class artists who draw from their imagination as "great"?[/i]

I, personally would only consider an artist who showed absolute originality "great". But art is subjective, so no-one has to agree with my opinion.
She's obviously bloody great at copying photos.

I have absolutely no comprehension of how someone does this