Wow, that they are so charmless, dull and lifeless is some achievement considering that the clear effort and skill that must have been used when making them.
These must be the epitome of the pointlessness of photorealistic paintings.
Just take a photo. Or use the talents to do photorealistic renditions of things you couldn’t take a photo of. This isn’t art. It’s at best a craft.
There is a reason people love the waves of artists like Turner and Hokusai but will ultimately not give a shit about these.
I could hardly disagree more. “Just take a photo”? Sure, no difference between Ansel Adams and Ann Leibovitz or Robert Capa. Just take a photo!
Sure, photorealism is a style and may not – clearly is not – your cup of tea, but it’s no less of an interpretation than photography.
Max_Brödel was and is renowned for his realism. I’d bet money that if you put the works of any two photorealistic artists of the same object side by side, you’d still be able to see a difference in their interpretations.
Would it be fair to say that most photorealistic paintings, especially of things in which the pose or form or lighting is ephemeral, begin life as a photograph?
I really like the paintings but the pedant in me feels compelled to point out that the statement “visible to our eye only with the addition of light” applies equally to everything we can see, whether the material in question is transparent or not.
…I’ll get my coat.
Not light. We can see that perfectly well without the addition of more light.
Needs more googly eyes.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.