Also I disagree with like, 200 things in that write up. Tons of stupid stuff in there to sell his workshop or whatever.
Like this one:
This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal.
Many artistic decisions? I guess a computer compiling millions of lines of code is simply making millions of "artistic decisions". What art is there in replicating some portrait for 70 hours like an OCD riddled, savant robot?
Read his reasons for why a photograph is not the same as art. Found at the bottom of his text:
CLIP
"The reason photography does not qualify as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality."
__________
My view:
Some might wonder why he did not just stop at a photo, since the airbrush painting looks so much like the photo. But, that painting is HIS art and the challenge is his.
IF he had made the portrait with matchsticks instead, then it would be just as much HIS art, even if the final result did not look so "photorealistic."
Steady Hand wrote:
Read his reasons for why a photograph is not the same as art. Found at the bottom of his text:
CLIP
"The reason photography does not qualify as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality."
__________
I am not sure how many photographer will agree with this comment. Sure there are a lot of snapshots and snap shooters out there (and here) but it does not mean that photographers do not apply their interpretive filter for art photography.
There is plenty of evidence against his view right in this forum.
bemyzeke wrote:
I am not sure how many photographer will agree with this comment. Sure there are a lot of snapshots and snap shooters out there (and here) but it does not mean that photographers do not apply their interpretive filter for art photography.
There is plenty of evidence against his view right in this forum.
I am not sure how many people, period, photographer or not, would agree with that guy's stupid statement.
it does give you pause to note that this whole process would be a lot easier to do in reverse than as presented.
if there was a claim that the photo was painted in the forward direction, rather then deconstructed in the backward direction -- a whole lot more evidence would be needed.
actually, not even a whole lot -- instead of a bunch of screenshots, how about a video. youtube is your friend....
other than that, this is obviously not what they want to claim it is...
Mr. Blair takes a photograph and then draws the same to make it look like the original photograph to tout that his "creation" looks just like the original photograph he COPIED to make his "creation" to begin with. I have never seen such a waste of talent, time and money (if all these website claims are to begin with.)
This gives me a great idea!!! I am going to now take photos of other people's photographs, print them with my printer, scan them into my computer and then re-print them on my printer and re-sell them as my creations.
