Photorealism - what's your opinion?
 

Not being a painter myself, I would be interested in hearing the opinion of you fine traditional painters out there about this style of painting. This link demonstrates a photorealistic portrait painted completely with an airbrush.

http://drublair.com/workshops/tica.html

I believe that PR is a totally different style of painting and that it don

My thoughts exactly. Why recreate something in another medium (paint) so closely as to make it indistinguishable from the original (photo). That would be like creating a full scale model of the Eiffel Tower out of paperclips, so accurate as to be indistinguishable from the original. Why bother?

I wonder if Photorealism is more about having something to prove than about having something to say?

There

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeney]I personally want to be privy to some information or insight that I couldn

I agree absolutely, and though I won't open the can of worms by naming names, some of the best-known contemporary artists being feted and deified have signature habits and quirks that I find extremely annoying, when encountered over and over -- as if they couldn't think of a different way to say something. I do realize that from a marketing perspective, consistency is important, but it also has that well-know hobgoblin quality. And there's a line, worth honoring, I think, between an artist's saying, "Look, here's the way I saw this subject," on the one hand, and, on the other, "Look at me!"

There's more than enough room in the world for both, but I'm not getting any younger, so I'm getting more particular. (Not unlike Bear Claw, in "Jeremiah Johnson," who when asked if he'd grown particular, responded, "Not about feedin', just the company I keep.")

And yes, Pema Chodron's advice -- her work has taken me to places I've barely glimpsed until now. I can't recommend her too highly.

The work is stunning and it takes talent to produce such a great PR painting. BUT why not just blow up a really good photo and save all the time and effort.

To me, realistic painting is about having the artist bringing something extra to the party. Interpretation, technique, viewpoint or even the artist's particular quirks in style (think Van Gogh) that goes beyond the obvious and clearly identifies the painting as unique and ART.

Well put!

Good (and interesting) commentaries from you all. I came across this site and had mixed feelings about it. On one hand, the technological aspects of how on earth they are able to do that is incredible. On the other hand, the work itself as a

Yes, in a sense. But I usually don't care for completely self-referential work -- not because it's bad or unworthy, but because I don't have any idea what the artist is on about, so there's no communication and, so, less "fun." I enjoy seeing "an artist at work." (Thomas Beuchner's work comes to mind at the moment.)

I can imagine it being something akin to a play on an old bit of bumper sticker marginalia, to read: "If you were accused of being an artist, would your work provide enough evidence to convict?" I think it may well be that some very talented "reproducers" might get off scot free.

One of the things that is not so obvious about this fellow's work is that much (if not most) of his photorealistic art is not only not done with photo references, but can't be done with photo references. He does quite a lot of high tech artwork for the military and if you look at some of that work, you'll see that he hasn't copied any pictures. That's where photorealism becomes an art. When it is used not to copy a photo, but to produce a photo "quality" image that could not (or at least not easily) be taken with a camera.
For an example, take a look at this one: Timing is Everything

Having said all that, I'm not a huge fan of PR style, but this guy is really amazing. Great thread!

Molly,
This "Timing is everything" is a combination of two photos.
The scout scene is taken with the sun coming in from the right as you see on the trees and Donald Duck

Well, I like that the same way I like a good photo, but I'd not pay for that any more than I would for a common photograph from the Mall.

I just browsed over these comments and had to add a bit of information that I thought some of you may find interesting. I know Dru. I spent a week painting next to him at Marvin Mattelson's 2004 North Carolina portrait workshop. No photos, just a live model in front of him and his portrait was amazing. And what was worse than painting next to him? Was the fact that it was his first attempt at an oil portrait. NO FAIR.

Wonderful person, amazing artist. Amazing!!

Yes, it wouldn't be hard to believe that someone with the technical skill exhibited throughout his website could rather easily translate it to other procedures, including life work -- which in fact probably seemed almost "too easy" to him. I had people like that around me at Daniel Greene's workshop, and it gave me pause to wonder if a brush handle could really be used as a weapon. (I was very insecure at the time.)

As a certified (nearly institutionalized and left for broke) aircraft aficionado and fanatic, full-size and models, I'd like to buy about half the works he has on that site.

Have to admit, though, that the hyper-detail in the airbrushed portraits still feels a little cool and clinical to me. I like to see bristles in play. This isn't peculiar to this artist, nor intended to be at all dismissive of him. Some traditional painters who take their work to the very highest levels of finish also have this effect on me, more and more.

Is anyone aware of a web page where we might see some of his life work?

I'd like to throw in my $.02 having been an airbrush artist for many years. It seems at the time that I was airbrushing, trying to get as realistic as possible was the goal of just about every airbrush artist. It was always considered "plastic" and "fake" looking, not more than removing blemishes from Playboy model photos. There was a race to find ways on giving flesh "life". What has to be understood also, that airbrushing was not just to create fine art, it was mostly used to do textile, so creating lifelike images on t-shirts and other material was to impress the client. It was also, and making a HUGE comeback, used for automotive purposes. Any realistic image airbrushed onto the hood of a car would get anyone's attention.

It's also about money. I've never met Dru, but I strongly believe that he would not see himself as a master comprable to the old masters because he can create a phot-realistic image. He's teaching how to airbrush and achieve realistic effects with it. It's simply showing potential airbrush artists what can be done with it. I could see a lot of interest, because of the automotive boom.

Regardless how it's viewed, I give him respect for being able to do it. I got pretty close when I was airbrushing, but would add more painterly effects in the background or in the clothing. All that got me was computer magazines wanting info on what programs I was using to manipulate my photos. As soon as I told them it was airbrushed, not a photo, I did'nt hear from them again.

There are very few airbrush artists that have made a big impact in the art world. H.R. Giger, creator of "Alien" may be the most known. His work surpasses the idea that it has been airbrushed. When airbrushed work is viewed, it is considered "airbrushed", not "acrylic", which has always been it's downfall.

I see nothing wrong with what he's doing. It's not something I would want on my wall, but it's still a great accomplishment.

ps. I actually remember seeing Dru's name in the online list, but he never participated and his name is'nt on the member list. Spooky.

That's right Jimmie, his work is great, but I prefer yours on my wall.

I don't know if he was ever on board here, though if so, an extended period of inactivity might have resulted in omission of his name from the member list, in the course of one of the housecleaning, software-update makeovers.

You might have seen this work elsewhere, too. I know that virtually this same thread (names changed to protect the innocent, if any), examining the same images and raising the same issues, was generated a long time ago on the studioproducts.com forum, the proprietor of which is an illustrator, so the thread had a different flavor.

After Marvin's class, where he learned about this site, Dru tried to sign up as a member but he told me he was not accepted. If I remember correctly it was because his work did not fit the definition of traditional portraiture.

What a shame. I bet he could get in now by submitting some of his life works from the class. I think he would have some very valuable insight to offer this forum and would fit right in.

Obviously if he is paying for a class with Marvin, he has a high interest in traditional portraiture.

I suspect that that was the most likely reason. The focus here is intentionally turned to traditional portraiture (including sculpture) -- the sort of works you can see in Cynthia's galleries from the SOG main page -- and even within those limits, there's already a breadth of styles and procedures and issues that taxes and sometimes overwhelms the energies and availability of folks who can offer useful, professional feedback. And the techniques of airbrushing are so highly specialized that, surely, anyone seeking instruction in them would seek out a site or forum dedicated to that practice.

It would be unfortunate, nonetheless, if the lack of a match between submissions and this Forum's focus engendered any hard feelings. Though I know that happens, I also know that every indulgence is given by many volunteers to bringing in new artists who are well on their way to mastering the fundamentals of portraiture and the business of portraiture, as well as experienced portrait practitioners who can (and, as importantly, will) lend insights and instruction, with the unwavering goal of shepherding sincere aspirants into the business. It's the Forum's only purpose. Frustratingly, many of the most talented applicants do not actively contribute to or participate in the Forum after acceptance, beyond posting a sampling of their portfolios. It's a difficult balancing act, deciding where to invest the administrators' resources.

In any event, if Dru is as good with a bristle brush as is being reported -- and there's no reason to doubt it -- I'm sure that submissions geared to this Forum would be very welcome.

Why Bother?
 

Well, frankly, I DON'T GET IT. Why not blow up a photograph? At my very intollerant, older age (67), I get to my own bottom line instantly.... so here it is....WHY BOTHER??? Just blow up a photograph and be done with it.

Painting someone's portrait involves perception, skill, etc.etc. .... and the energy of the artist. PR to me is just one of those things that I see as "Just get over it!"

SO, I'm not a a diplomat. So...who cares. Painting involves such an enormous amount of physical, spiritual, perceptual, intellectual .... ...... oh my goodness... and on and on qualities that to do a painting that is a PR ... sorry, no room for interest or excuses. This business is way too difficult to give kudos to that kind of stuff. So be it.

Disclaimer: No, I'm not in the Special Forces.

Yay Dru!
 

Heidi, my friend, thanks so much for bringing this in. I, too, am a textile/ auto/ motorcycle airbrusher. I've been doing it off and on for years. In fact, I still do them occasionally in my sign and graphic business. I have appreciated all the great airbrush Icons since the 70s and mostly in the 80 through early 90s when these T-shirt guys were in their heyday. Let's see...there was Dru Blair's airborne depictions, Terry Hill and his muscle cars, Pat Gaines who started the largest chain of airbrush stores in America, and of course the very famous "Jurek". Jurek was a smash hit with his "full bleed" celeb portraits, hot chicks and of course the big cats (tigers being a specialty) and he's still is going strong today. His website is http://www.jurek-art.com/

My personal take on photorealism is that it is a great way to learn where all the details are supposed to go...literally. The thing I think is compelling is when guys that have this knowledge can learn to "fuzzy up" the edges a bit more and don't try to put in all that background stuff can really create a beautiful portrait of anything...figurative or otherwise. ;)

So....I think that knowledge of all the traditional training together with the immense amount of visual data from a photo is very viable and still very interesting to view....when done well.....of course....like anything in life! haha!

~Gear

photorealism
 

A great artist, beautiful work, outstanding achievement, but it leaves me cold.

I think most people when commissioning a portrait, or viewing great portraiture they want to see and feel that human touch in the painting, that unique indescribable warmth thats transfered from brush to canvas. They look for what is difficult to put into words. The hand painted portrait communicates it all in a split second, no words are required.

Yes Steven,
I think if Dru is just 50% that good with a bristle brush it would already be a great accomplishment, and I'd like to see his pencil works too.

As something of a bookend or at least a place marker here, if this thread isn't played out now, I believe that in the interest of fairness and decorum it ought to continue only as a discussion of the genre of photorealism and not of any individual practitioners, particularly those absent from the discussion.

In retrospect, my own effort in this regard was insufficient and counterproductive, as by trying to give the artist the benefit of the doubt, I unwittingly just kept his name in play, when the focus should have been on the work itself.

We learn by doing, and sometimes by re-doing.

(And sometimes by do-be-doing.)