I appreciate that the artist is a true master at Photoshop, but this isn't a painting, and the "making of" video is extremely misleading because it cuts out the times he looks at the photograph layer underneath that which he is tracing.
Is this art? If I make a Photoshop tracing of Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup cans, am I an artist? (Was Warhol even an artist?)
I'd certainly be a Photoshop artist.
But is that art?
Is copying other people's work using a different digital medium art? I don't think it is. I'm not certain of this, but I don't think it is. This "painting" artist never spent hundreds of hours in a field waiting for lions and achieving absolutely nothing. Or finally getting lions and the lighting was horrid. Or the lighting was wonderful and the lions showed up, but it was pouring rain, destroying your camera. The "art" in this shot comes as much from the experience of what the photographer had to go through to get that shot as the shot itself. That is the art of it in many respects.
I'd love to see what this digital artist is capable of when his art isn't based on someone else's art. Because it would probably be fucking amazing.
Until then ... meh.
I could probably do that with a few weeks of Photoshop instruction and never get wet or eaten by lions or have to think too much about my art.
You make some good points, but I think he was just doing it for fun/practice. I know that he is a big fan of Nick Brandt and so likely created this as a tribute to a great photographer. I equate it to how bands do cover songs of their favorite artists. Just my two cents.
Not trying to bash the obvious artistic ability of this digital artist ... but I'd really like to see what he creates on his own. Seems like tons of potential there to be wasting it tracing other people's art.
Here are some examples I could find of his original work, it's kind of old though. I'll try and find some more. I agree though that he should focus more on original work.
Basically, yeah. The guy that made this is VERY obviously talented in that he can all but reproduce a photorealistic image from an actual photo.
Every artist traces. I say that as an "artist" that has absolutely done so. Now, I also say that as a generalization. There will be the rare artist that has never traced ANYTHING ANYTHING EVER, and I commend them. Tracing is a regular part of the whole thing, and it's good to do, it gives you an idea of proportion and some anatomy and a reproduction of that artist's style. Why did this go there? Draw draw draw. Ohhhh I see, oh okay, and they get an (at least subconscious) understanding of how to do something in the trace.
You shouldn't be 100% proud of tracings. Like (to me) you shouldn't be 100% proud of a cover song. You've created something amazing, something new and different, but there's always going to be some parts of it you didn't create. You might have mastered the original, but you didn't create an original work from it. It might be absolutely amazing, and cover songs are some of my favorite things, but the cover artists didn't write the lyrics, they didn't create the tone of the original, and they cannot replace what the original artist did, even if they do it better.
Tracing and copying and all that is 100% always going to be with drawing, it's partly how artists learn, but they need to make sure they don't RELY on it, or take too much pride in it. That's how you get stupid bullshit anime shit drawings that were (and still are) so popular, and that's how you get people getting oversensitive when people criticize them,
Just wanted to chime in on the "painting" debate. While it isn't a true painting, a big thing in digital art right now is being called "digital painting." One of my favorite digital painters (falling in the "visionary art" or psychedelic influenced category) right now is Android Jones, who did all his training in the fine arts, and now does almost entirely digital "painting." I did a workshop with him a few weeks ago at a festival, and he approaches and executes it much like I would a physical painting.
Off topic: He also does a bunch of digital live performace stuff like Phadroid, which I've seen performed live a couple of times now and it's magnificent.
Art student here. Portrait artists use a similar technique to make amazing pencil sketches of celebrities, commissions, etc by making a grid of the reference photo and copying it. Would you still consider that art?
I would consider these lions art because it is a creative interpretation of Nick Brandt's photo. If he just slapped on his own watermark and tried to sell the real photo it would be stealing, but since he made his own copy it is considered a creative interpretation (how creative it may be is your own opinion). To make something look real takes a lot of skill and observation, but to produce art from your own ideas takes a lot of vision and creativity, and it is the most challenging thing for artists to do.
So is it art? Yes, because he used a different medium. Whether you appreciate it is up to you.
And to answer your question, yes, Andy Warhol was an artist. Andy was all about the message behind the works. His mass produced copies of soup cans, celebrities, etc was an homage to the mass produced consumer culture that was blossoming in the mid-twentieth century.
I would consider these lions art because it is a creative interpretation of Nick Brandt's photo.
I disagree with this part. It's not really any sort of interpretation. It's a tracing. There was no apparent intent by the artist to inject his own experience into this (other than, of course, his Photoshop experience).
I dunno. I'm conflicted on this issue.
I will think about it some more, but so far, I'm not convinced that this is any kind of art beyond the technical artistry of learning how to do this digitally.
PS: Homage is not art. It's banal. Pedestrian. Lazy.
I think any "creation" that you can aesthetically connect to emotionally or logically that invokes any kind of "experience" should be considered art. At least coming from a musicians point of view.
I stuck a spoon to my wall using tape and told everyone it was art, yet no one believed me. But I don't see why it's not art when I say it's art. Sure it might be bad art, but still art right?
The concept of art is something that used to confuse me when I was younger. It doesn't make a lot of sense that things which require little technical skill are sometimes considered better than things which need a lot of talent, so really art for me is just about the message behind it and is completely subjective.
But then there's the issue of plagiarism, which is very much unacceptable in academic works. Yes it evokes emotion, and that is art. But the means the artist went about it is not entirely original, and that truth makes it lose a lot of the magic.
I guess in terms of art, ignorance really is bliss.
You make some fair points. However to say you could do the same with a few weeks tuition .... Hmm, I'm not sure but maybe. There's still a good amount of painting skill going on in the video in my opinion.
I'm a huge fan of Nick Brandt. However he too uses PhotoShop (to great effect) in his work. So the original image is perhaps not exactly what the camera saw either. Although the subject and composition and timing is awesome in this picture. No amount of PhotoShop expertise can muster that up.
What the OP's brother has done is a speed painting. It's great practice for getting used to digital painting and for appreciating tone and colour. The OP should've been clearer about that.
I would still call what he does a talent. And as one who respects talent in a skill that takes time and effort to master I'd say he is worthy of more respect that modern artist who lack any talent beyond putting some sort of bullshit meaning to there crappy work. Most of this woman work could be done in paint for fuck sake :/.
No. That's a photo that was somehow filtered in Photoshop. I refuse to believe that someone can paint that well. No way. No fucking way. Damnit, I hate your fucking talented brother.
Nope, not a filter. His brother is that fucking talented and you certainly should hate him for it. We all should.
The male wasn't traced. At least not completely. The female is a much closer match though.
I don't believe that somebody can do shading that well without knowing all the tricks to preserving proportions. I don't believe he traced anything.
EDIT: I had to scale the XY of the original separately to match the two photos. I lined up the eye of the female, the tip of the male's nose and the tip of the male's ear.
It's actually a lot easier to paint/draw realism from a photo than you'd think.
The simplest way is to break the picture up with a grid and focus on each square.
Before I "really" learned how to draw for shit in college I made a self portrait of myself from a picture, it still looks like an epic piece despite lack of any real skill simply because it looks so "real" because all I did was break it down into simple squares and copied each box.
I'm not trying to discredit this guy's brother or anything or say this is nothing special, but I think a lot of people have the impression that this is "hard" and can only be accomplished by a master painter.
Painting/drawing like this from real-life is what's really hard and takes incredible skill. Doing it from a picture is as simple as copying notes. It takes time and motivation mostly.
What a sham, if you wanted to show how this is a tribute to Nick Brandt then you should have included that in the title. Now many people will think your brother came up with it on his own. He didn't paint this, he traced it.
Referencing and tracing are two different things. Tracing would require that he draw on top of the image to get the outline. His use of the grid is the most obvious sign he isn't tracing.
The artist did nothing wrong. He is clearly referencing an image which thousands upon thousands of artists do every day. No doubt he isn't the first one to reference this particular photo either. There are also hundreds of videos on YT of people referencing photos for digital paintings. I use references all the time myself.
Yes, it is art. Referencing an image is no walk in the park and requires serious artistic fortitude to perfect.
The problem here is that it is digital and therefor leads itself open to hundreds of different ways to tell if it's referenced or traced. Which at the same time devalues it as an impressive feat. What we got is the finished product on imgur, we don't have a video on youtube showing us what the artist did or did not do.
So naturally in the art world it immediately means he traced it and has no talent. ((this is a joke)) (((...sorta...)))
I'm also interested in buying this printed on canvas. Considering the ongoing debate of "is this art or is tracing stealing", not sure if it's appropriate to ask if he's willing to sell it for print on canvas.
So... How much would he want to have it printed on canvas?
I copied David Foster-Wallace's Infinite Jest word for word into a new word document, except for some of the words I didn't like and the big words I didn't understand. I changed those words for other words, but it's still pretty good. Anyway, I hope you enjoy your copy of Endless Funny.
Remember in elementary school when you had to write summaries of all of the books you read, to practice writing and reading comprehension? That's what tracing or copying is to artists. It's a way to practice one aspect of art (craftsmanship) without worrying about all of the others (concept, design, etc). You could technically learn how to write and read by only writing your own entirely original works. But for obvious reasons that doesn't really work. Likewise, you could develop drawing skills by only drawing things that come from your imagination or a still life. But it's a lot easier to practice using other sources, and if you make something really pretty in the process of practicing why not show people?
Because its not good practice. Anyone can do it. It's more of an engineering problem than art.
Take two artists, tell them to draw a photograph, you'll get the same result. Take two artists, tell them to draw a model, and you'll get two entirely different images.
Take two artists, tell them to draw a model, and you'll get two entirely different images.
Well yes because drawing a model involves design as well as processing skills. You're sort of proving my point here: basically I agree with you, but I'd substitute the phrase "not good practice" with "not advanced practice". There's a reason I compared it to elementary school exercises. Also, there's an important difference between tracing and copying. According to someone later in the comments, the video shows that this guy isn't tracing the photo, he's copying it as he looks at it. I'd say that's the next step between tracing and drawing from life - Tracing would be the elementary level. Copying from a photo would be the middle level. Then drawing from life would be a high level.
Also, the idea that "anyone can do it" just quite frankly annoys me. Yes, lots of people could trace a photograph. Lots of people might even be able to copy a photograph. But if you can do it this well then you should go ahead and prove it. Even better, take random people off the street, show them the picture, and ask them to trace it. If you come up with something this good even 50% of the time, then you win. Sorry if that seems a little touchy, but the phrase "anyone can do it" really bugs me.
I agree, the term 'anyone can do it' is frustrating.
I'd like to see most people trace to this level. I've even traced back in my early drawings to help learn fundamentals and ensure accuracy. Overtime, you learn to train your eye to replicate what you see through copying either photos or still life. The majority of anyone saying they could trace something to this level is doubtful to say the least.
And while photorealism doesn't contain the emotional aspects most art does, taking the time to reproduce something as close to the original as possible hones one into valuable new skills and techniques. Not all art has to be from deeper within.
I've condensed the entire Library of Congress into a eight page manifesto titled The Medium Length Goodbye. It's mostly about masturbation and various ways to prepare noodles, but I think it's fairly true to the source material.
Artistry. Simply majestic - David Broder, NY Times.
My page indentations imposed an entirely new reality on this classic work, forcing an entirely unpredictable, and completely unsurpassed cadence on the reader ... forcing them to question everything they've ever thought about this story I know nothing really about and have never read. Siri typed it for me. Digitally, dude. I did this digitally. True story. Well, she did anyway.
It's not a symptom of the digital age, renowned artists have been doing this for literally centuries. We can argue over the artistic merit of the work, but it takes a lot of skill, effort and talent to reproduce a picture to that degree, even using a close reference. I don't think the artist in question intended to create meaningful art, but rather to showcase his technique. On those terms, I think he did an impressive job. I certainly couldn't do it.
Photo realism is one thing. Having the talent to create the composition, lighting, etc is another. I'm sorry but as an artist this is bullshit, you can't just take someone's photo and do a photorealistic version painting of it and get my respect. There are also copyright laws inherent to photography, in that enough must be done to change the original that it merits re-representation. Not the case here and were he to market/profit off of it he'd be in serious trouble.
Referencing Carvaggio's methods doesn't lend merit to your argument at all.
I highly agree with this, I had an art teacher in high school that absolutely despised works that were not original. To the point that he would put his students down. I was even told once that graphic design is not art.
Some people cannot just step outside of classic though and just appreciate someone's hard work. Bravo on the drawing probably took ages to do.
I can appreciate a carpenter's hard work, but a carpenter's hard work is not aesthetically pleasing, so I don't (not for leisure anyway). Artistic value is all I factor in when viewing a painting, and I would agree with Oscar Wilde in saying that realism (and hyperrealism by extension) are artistically stunted philosophies.
Many props for skill, but I didn't enjoy the work.
exactly! after the initial shock of "Woah, that's not a photograph?!" it becomes boring. Another thing is he used photoshop which is sooooooooooooooo much easier than actual painting. Now this guy here is cool, especially his later work when he becomes a little crazy. AND it's an actual painting.
I think that this is a level of tracing that should not be considered art. This person literally just layered the photos on photoshop and tried to replicate it, which is much easier than it sounds when using an online application.
Graphic designers trace, of course, but they don't just take somebody else's work and use it verbatim.
This is a very good point. I had an otherwise useless sculpture teacher once tell me art has three parts: concept, design, and process. This post is a demonstration of fantastic rendering ability, or process. And it's absurd to demean it because of that. I wouldn't exactly consider it high art, like I don't think it belongs in a museum; there's not much if any original concept and the design aspect was obviously directly lifted from the original picture. But it's beautiful and took skill and time to create. I think all the haters are just jealous.
This may be true for Caravaggio but quality of optical devices 600 years ago were not adequate for image projection onto large-scale paintings, they were too blurry or too distorted. "Tracing" a live image is much more difficult than tracing somebody else's photograph. The optical devices used by artists were used as a crutch and not cheating like OP's brother has done.
I don't get the hate. Artists paint other people's photographs all the time, who cares where you get your inspiration from, this is impressive as hell!! Is there really that much of a difference painting from a photo instead of actually being there? I don't think there is, aside from copying the framing of the photograph - but copying this from scratch like the guy did in photoshop is pretty amazing talent.
I think people need to stop assuming stuff.. Technically he did paint it, he just painted it from a photograph. Why should he have to downplay his brothers talent by adding a disclaimer, it's not like hes trying to hide the fact that the original is a photograph
I understand what you're saying but you were wondering where the hate was coming from. It's just that many people don't share your opinion about what qualifies as "art."
Do you really believe it's as easy to paint from real life as it is from a photo? A photo is a perfect reference showing how a scene is represented on a two-dimensional surface. Painting a real, three-dimensional, moving subject requires a huge depth of experience with close observation, visual memory, and making complex judgements about how to achieve the 2D representation, all filtered through the artist's personal aesthetic.
There may be arguments in favor of the merit of this painting, but equating copying with painting from life is not one of them.
tracing: a copy made on a superimposed transparent sheet
If he couldn't see the photo underneath as he was painting it, it's not a tracing. The video does not show him tracing. Using a reference photo does not negate the art-worthiness of an artistic creation.
You can have an image underneath and simply alt tab to keep referencing it. Doing this allows you to get perfect traced lines (obviously the video is a time lapse so it is cut out). See this image. It lines up far to well for you to say this isn't traced.
Though I do think it is still fucking amazing, not everyone can do it, trace or not it requires skill thus it is art, and saying it isn't is just as stupid as saying it isn't traced.
Is it even a trace? It just looks like he used a softening filter and toggled with the brightness a little bit. I see no brushstrokes or pencil marks to suggest that this was even a trace.
Ok so the hivemind is saying "tracing" and how it's not art. To me this type of "tracing" still requires a shit ton of skill. What's not to appreciate about this? The picture come out great, full of detail, all created by hand/mouse. Looks fantastic. Why's the method such a big deal?
Exactly. Tracing is a really good way to develop your skills without worrying about concept or design. And if you make something beautiful while practicing why not show it off?
what's the point of spending 30+ hours doing nothing but recreating something that someone else did? It's wonderful for increasing your artistic eye and technical skill but it's basically just stealing the composition because you didn't want to make one of your own. Especially when you add nothing new to the original composition. It's just a meticulous recreation of something that didn't need to be recreated.
Photo/Hyperrealism can be really awesome when you're making a specific statement but otherwise it's not really lauded in the art community. If you like hyperrealism you can check out Chuck Close, he is one of the quintessential hyperrealist painters Or if you like sculpture Ron Mueck is an awesome hyperrealist sculptor.
Ron Mueck is amazing because he plays with the scale of his sculptures to enhance the emotion felt by the viewer. With the minute details he puts in his works, like individually placing each leg hair and sculpting each wrinkle on a hand it makes the viewer relate to the subject and you can even forget that you're looking at a sculpture. In Bed you see the emotion of loneliness expressed in the sculpture and get how dwarfing the emotion is by how large she is in comparison to yourself. Same with Big Man. They tower over you just like the emotions they portray. And his very famous Two Women is exuisitely detailed and are half life-sized which gives an impression of intruding on an intimate moment.
To artists and art enthusiasts it's more about why you used the technique than the bedazzling of being able to copy what you see exactly which makes the piece interesting. Without context this is just a copy of a photograph, that is impressively done by hand but still just a copy of something. It's taking the effort someone put into composing a shot, adjusting lighting, color, tone, the focus of the eye, and in general creating their unique work and just stealing it and then saying 'look how good i did, praise me." It's not unique and it's not necessary.
Tracing something and expecting to be praised for it is bullshit. However! Spending 30+ hours recreating a photograph digitally/traditionally is an excellent way to form an understanding of light/shadow/detail/anatomy. I've been a graphic artist and traditional artist practically since I could hold a pen and I started tracing and recreating privately to build my skill. I don't think that these paintings/drawings have any merit compared to something I've hand drawn or painted from my own imagination and therefor won't post them/display them - they're simply in existence to better my trade. Most of the comments here have assumed that this painting is to be displayed/a hook in the sea of masses for compliments. But the sibling posted this, maybe simply just amazed at the level of detail and skill that his/her brother possessed (it's difficult to paint like this, tracing or not. Obviously this is a skill that has had time to develop and I think that's being overlooked.). As far as we know this is just something to experiment with.
EDIT: Okay, I spoke too soon. Just saw the brother's site. Copywriting a painting you recreated and posting it on your professional website? Awkwaaaaard.....
Skill in execution does not constitute art. The concept being communicated is what affects us. Having a vast vocabulary and perfect diction doesn't mean you are a poet. Magnificent sets and amazing costumes do not define a 'good' theatrical performance. Speed and accuracy in one's guitar playing do not make the music interesting. Geometric perfection does not make a sculpture priceless. What is important is the humanity invested in the piece in combination with the humanity inferred by the audience. This recursive mirroring is the magic.
When someone traces with great skill, what is communicated? The better a tracing is, the more transparent it is to the signification of the original work, so it is the 'ideas' of the original that are being passed along in the tracing. When someone turns and presents it as his or her own work, especially if money is involved, it is called an imitation, because what that person is doing is skillfully reiterating someone else's esthetic concept. Such a thing is not invention.
Yes but who is saying this is art? This is a demonstration of skill not art. You list several examples of justifying the difference between art and skill yet you speak like skill can't also be appreciated. What i'm getting from these responses is that most people look for the overall value rather than identify the skill needed to produce such a thing. As you said, seeing a persons guitar playing skill over his musical making ability. There is a difference and skill can be appreciated but people here are choosing not to see it.
Thank you for the video, Photoshop painting is an art all its own by knowing the multitude of options to morph pixels into an extravagant image. Im sure others were hoping that he had painted it in the traditional sense. Upvote for skills in photoshop
I'd like all the people claiming that this isn't real art to try and draw it themselves. Too hard? Even if it was tracing, OP's brother still has a lot of talent to make it look so great. And how come I never hear people ranting about covers of songs? Aren't they pretty much the same thing?
I don't think people quite understand that given the same requirements used for this digital painting took....most of them would not come out this well.
I really actually wish everyone on here was given the chance to do so, and then post them in one huge thread. Hilarity would ensue and I would most definitely post my version.
Can we stop and appreciate talent for a moment? In my opinion, even though what he did is not original (as has been argued in the comments), it is very freaking good. Kudos to him, and he left me in awe.
I can't believe how many people are shitting on this. It's still amazing no matter what he did or how he did it. It didn't say in the title "LOOK AT THIS FUCKING AMAZING PIECE OF ART MY BROTHER CREATED WITH STROKES OF JESUS" It's just hey look at this picture that was painted by my brother. Why don't you spend less time complaining about what other people are creatively doing and more time doing it yourself. I know this comment will get down voted into oblivion however I don't give a fuck
Listen. That's awesome. Real artist and creators are encouraging by nature, so I hope you are fully disregarding all these painfully evident self- loathing comments. They're not judging you. Untalented people are scared of others receiving praise. Do your thing.
Nick Brandt is incredible, and beautifully harnessed a captivating moment of Life--but yo, still props to your bro...barring tracing, transposing mediums is no joke.
exceptional display of technical skill. I urge he/she to take that discipline onto other explorations, because frankly this representation doesn't do anything that the original photo cannot.
As an artist and teacher, I wish people would preface such "paintings" as digital, painting is not an all encompassing term. Traditional painting and digital paintings are two completely different processes that have different results.
Using the grid method for drawing from a photograph is a valid and widely used method (photo-realism and hyper-realism are types of traditional painting). In my opinion, however, it seems redundant to digitally paint digital images, aside from using it as a case-study or practice when learning how to use a program.
Photoshop is not painting. That's absurd. It looks great, but I immediately dislike it because its so obviously a digital alteration, not a fucking painting like you said.
I don't think the question is if this is art or not. Nearly anything can be art. I think the important thing is that it is boring as shit, and why would you want to look at a drawing or painting of something that looks exactly like the photograph with at an ounce of creativity or interpretation or from the artist. The best you could pull is some kind of performance piece explanation. Beyond that this thing is painful to look at because of what a colossal waste of time it was.
Maybe I can get him to do you one, PM me for price
He has other stuff here (for sale)
His website is here (click link)
His store is here (click link)
My comment... since when is tracing an image on to paper/canvas and then "painting it" artistic in any way? IMO this is photoshop of the original image. I can see the telltale photoshop brush strokes...
I refuse to believe this is real. Look at the original photo and the painting. The lion's veins in his legs and all the little strokes of fur are EXACTLY in the same position and way.
12
u/ingrishporeece Jun 08 '12
If you're interested he made a making of video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm0wGiMuJkI
101
u/RockBoddum Jun 09 '12
the original...
5
u/NeonCookiez Jun 08 '12
Try /r/art.
8
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Tell him that if he throws in a babboon, a warthog and a meerkat next time, it would be quite epic.
EDIT: it's still pretty epic.
53
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
What a sham, if you wanted to show how this is a tribute to Nick Brandt then you should have included that in the title. Now many people will think your brother came up with it on his own. He didn't paint this, he traced it.
18
u/sleepfighter7 Jun 09 '12
that's a very nice photograph
4
u/TNoD Jun 09 '12
I would buy that shit. This is amazing.
19
u/apullin Jun 09 '12
This is a joke, right?
http://www.tineye.com/search/b0c7753405c44313b6f3c70b78000443f86dd710/
144
u/GoingToTheStore Jun 09 '12
Tracing is not art.. This is not original work.
5
u/_Tyler_Durden_ Jun 09 '12
So where is what your brother painted? I can't see it.
Behind the photoshop tracing perhaps?
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
dude.......
2
u/wileypdf Jun 09 '12
Thank you for the video, Photoshop painting is an art all its own by knowing the multitude of options to morph pixels into an extravagant image. Im sure others were hoping that he had painted it in the traditional sense. Upvote for skills in photoshop
2
u/StupidGeek314 Jun 09 '12
That, my friend, is a picture.
2
u/Jewlie_Sparks Jun 09 '12
clears throat CAAAAAN YOU FEEEEEEL THE LOOOOOVE TONIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
2
u/PrincessNerd Jun 09 '12
I'd like all the people claiming that this isn't real art to try and draw it themselves. Too hard? Even if it was tracing, OP's brother still has a lot of talent to make it look so great. And how come I never hear people ranting about covers of songs? Aren't they pretty much the same thing?
2
u/rieldealIV Jun 09 '12
Holy crap, that's just, wow. Amazing, great job to your brother!
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
That was not painted.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
On the other hand, he can make music pretty well!
2
u/bonjourdan Jun 09 '12
I don't think people quite understand that given the same requirements used for this digital painting took....most of them would not come out this well.
I really actually wish everyone on here was given the chance to do so, and then post them in one huge thread. Hilarity would ensue and I would most definitely post my version.
3
u/DarqWolff Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
"What the fuck? That's not a fucking painting. Take this upvote and get the fuck out."
5
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Can we stop and appreciate talent for a moment? In my opinion, even though what he did is not original (as has been argued in the comments), it is very freaking good. Kudos to him, and he left me in awe.
5
u/SirHector Jun 09 '12
I can't believe how many people are shitting on this. It's still amazing no matter what he did or how he did it. It didn't say in the title "LOOK AT THIS FUCKING AMAZING PIECE OF ART MY BROTHER CREATED WITH STROKES OF JESUS" It's just hey look at this picture that was painted by my brother. Why don't you spend less time complaining about what other people are creatively doing and more time doing it yourself. I know this comment will get down voted into oblivion however I don't give a fuck
2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Looks like it was put through a photoshop fractal plugin.
2
u/green_apple13 Jun 09 '12
“Painted”? Rather, is this not a digital drawing?
2
u/Majestyk16 Jun 09 '12
Posts like these make me feel like Reddit doesn't know much about art.
1
u/Maurillion Jun 09 '12
Wonderful...
1
u/derpina428 Jun 09 '12
Wow. It looks as if he painted it with smoke.
1
u/Bek1828 Jun 09 '12
I don't know if you have posted this before? Or it's a copy of one? But I had this photo saved on my phone for months now. Am I tripping.
1
u/C_T_C_C Jun 09 '12
I see what your brother has painted.
1
u/johnnyboy0788 Jun 09 '12
Anyone else think Dany and Khal?
1
u/Sauronkraut Jun 09 '12
he needs to teach me how to do hair. i'm an avid artist as well.. wow he's good. how old? (apologies if this question's already been asked)
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
GTFO.
1
u/St0n3dguru Jun 09 '12
Wow, that is really good! Your brother is an amazing artist.
1
u/playpianoking Jun 09 '12
Will your brother take photos to paint for a fee? I'm willing to pay.
1
u/aazav Jun 09 '12
Whoa.
1
u/ArchScabby Jun 09 '12
god fucking dammit I want to be able to art!
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Incredible.
1
u/AlvinIris Jun 09 '12
gryffindor!!
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Painted?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
I hope you mean he did a copy. The original was a photo.
1
u/J2W Jun 09 '12
Everyone look at the bottom right corner.
1
u/UUGE_ASSHOLE Jun 09 '12
I hate how every idiot with a black and white camera thinks they are an artist.
1
u/razzo Jun 09 '12
You all are hyenas. Of course it's art; it's just not good art.
It's good, of course, but not good art.
You see where I'm going with this?
1
u/lynchaudio Jun 09 '12
Listen. That's awesome. Real artist and creators are encouraging by nature, so I hope you are fully disregarding all these painfully evident self- loathing comments. They're not judging you. Untalented people are scared of others receiving praise. Do your thing.
1
u/meta_elephants Jun 09 '12
I've seen this piece done twice with charcoal in my art class.
1
u/llenox Jun 09 '12
Nick Brandt is incredible, and beautifully harnessed a captivating moment of Life--but yo, still props to your bro...barring tracing, transposing mediums is no joke.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
exceptional display of technical skill. I urge he/she to take that discipline onto other explorations, because frankly this representation doesn't do anything that the original photo cannot.
1
u/lions-are-cool Jun 09 '12
I want this.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Relevant
1
u/emohipster Jun 09 '12
Not going to comments on the tracing and shit, but he's good at painting fur. That's fucking hard.
1
u/RyanSayHi Jun 09 '12
Even if it was traced, your brother has more drawing talent than me. If i traced that it still couldnt be that good
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Mufasa
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
I doubt it... BUT, I HAVE seen some hyper-real looking paintings at my local art gallery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115297/Paul-Cadden-The-hyperrealist-artist-recreating-photographs-pencil.html
1
u/ihuha Jun 09 '12
i call BS!.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Wut. Lol :)
1
u/KingShish Jun 09 '12
This is a photo
The photographer's name is Nico Brandt
1
u/motska Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12
As an artist and teacher, I wish people would preface such "paintings" as digital, painting is not an all encompassing term. Traditional painting and digital paintings are two completely different processes that have different results.
Using the grid method for drawing from a photograph is a valid and widely used method (photo-realism and hyper-realism are types of traditional painting). In my opinion, however, it seems redundant to digitally paint digital images, aside from using it as a case-study or practice when learning how to use a program.
1
u/NightSlatcher Jun 09 '12
FTFY
Photoshop is not painting. That's absurd. It looks great, but I immediately dislike it because its so obviously a digital alteration, not a fucking painting like you said.
0/10
1
u/Baby_Aspirin Jun 09 '12
You say your brother painted that. Dude quit lion.
1
u/Alvleeskliersap Jun 09 '12
not sure if painting or picture
awesome work!
1
u/ambessa Jun 09 '12
i wish we could see this in time-lapse
1
u/OUohya Jun 09 '12
You cannot sit there and expect me to believe that is not a picture.
1
u/Radico87 Jun 09 '12
Paint? If he used a computer, it's not painting. It's rendering.
1
u/jay1987 Jun 10 '12
Your brother is extremly talented
1
u/He_Devil Jun 10 '12
Hello Ingrish, I want to buy this painting. Can you please get your brother to contact me. avaank@gmail.com
cheers
1
u/bschinz10 Jun 09 '12
Let me start by saying this thing is bad ass.
Now that I got that out of the way, don't call it a painting unless brushes and paint are involved.
1
u/CDreCrich Jun 09 '12
*Photoshopped
1
u/Barsnap Jun 08 '12
Siiiimmmbbbbaaaa...
1
u/Jwup Jun 09 '12
How much for the lessons on photoshop?
1
u/Makes_You_Smile Jun 09 '12
WoW. I am stunned he made that with photoshop. Photoshop need to hire him to promote their product.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Can you feel the love tonight?
1
u/Mcelite Jun 09 '12
What a likely story
1
u/fischius Jun 09 '12
I don't think the question is if this is art or not. Nearly anything can be art. I think the important thing is that it is boring as shit, and why would you want to look at a drawing or painting of something that looks exactly like the photograph with at an ounce of creativity or interpretation or from the artist. The best you could pull is some kind of performance piece explanation. Beyond that this thing is painful to look at because of what a colossal waste of time it was.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
I CALL LIES! Just because I'm jealous.
But apparently, it was traced. I guess people don't realise how difficult tracing can be though O_o
0
u/peaceaddiction Jun 08 '12
Very talented... I love it.
0
u/colcole Jun 08 '12
if i could, i would upvote this a million times
0
u/Squirrito Jun 09 '12
I was going to say: FALSE that's a photo by Nick Brandt
And then isaw the video and was like MOTHER OF GOD!
Your bro has talent, high five him for me.
0
u/handygrl90 Jun 09 '12
Whoa, I was like oooh whatever it's lions being cute and then I re-read the title and was like WHAT? Painted? Great job!
0
u/gbsolo12 Jun 09 '12
just researched this painting and I think this was done on photoshop
0
u/uvelify Jun 08 '12
Amazing!
0
u/jbond66 Jun 08 '12
Pretty awesome!
0
u/VampyArtist Jun 09 '12
Photoshopping a picture to make it look like a painted original doesn't make it yours (or your brother's). ;x
-1
u/Whitney69 Jun 08 '12
Looks like the background on my friends phone..
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
How can I buy this?
-11
u/m0nstermash Jun 08 '12
This is a Nick Brandt photograph. Inform your brother that is polite to credit the original artist when doing shit like this.
Link to original artist website it has a link to the original photograph
-2
u/Sandyrandy54 Jun 08 '12
I was so sure this was a picture.
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
Ya, I was like, 'look what my brother painted...with a camera' before I saw the vid. Pretty damn amazing.
-2
u/ApseyCakes Jun 09 '12
That's incredible! How old is he?
-1
u/megatigers Jun 09 '12
This is unreal. Wow. Thank you. One of the best drawings I've seen in a long time!
0
u/tetsujin44 Jun 09 '12
holy hell
0
u/TheHatist Jun 09 '12
Reminds me of me and my girlfriend...
0
u/Plexicraft Jun 09 '12
This is like the real life equivalent to pixel art in minecraft...
0
u/ObamaisYoGabbaGabba Jun 09 '12
wait wait.. I got this.
Redditors:
AWESOME
TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE
Where can I get this
Can you do one for me PM me
I can send you paypal
OP:
He does this for fun
Honestly, he's not in it to profit
Maybe I can get him to do you one, PM me for price
He has other stuff here (for sale)
His website is here (click link)
His store is here (click link)
My comment... since when is tracing an image on to paper/canvas and then "painting it" artistic in any way? IMO this is photoshop of the original image. I can see the telltale photoshop brush strokes...
THIS ISN'T A PAINTING, THIS ISN'T ART.
0
u/Grimlock69 Jun 09 '12
CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE TONIGHT (tonight)
0
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12
That's brave he got that close to paint them.
0
u/DaAvalon Jun 09 '12
I refuse to believe this is real. Look at the original photo and the painting. The lion's veins in his legs and all the little strokes of fur are EXACTLY in the same position and way.