Photorealism - what's your opinion?

[Jimmie Arroyo]

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.

[Claudemir Bonfim]

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.

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

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Jimmie Arroyo

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.

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.

[Janel Maples]

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.

[Heidi Maiers]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

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.

[Geary Wootten]

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

[Henry Wienhold]

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.

[Claudemir Bonfim]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

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.

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

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.)