30 September 2010
76 comments... »
Pedro Campos‘ photorealistic paintings seriously had me look twice! I’m utterly amazed that this is NOT real photos.
All the shown paintings are oil on canvas.
Posted by Cecilie Friis Borup on 30 September 2010.
Categories: Art. Tags: Art, Artist, Painter, Pedro Campos, Photorealism.
Excellent workmanship, technically stunning….but as art, it is unfathomable that someone would go to the trouble of painting something in such a realistic manner when you could snap a pic’ in less than a second. Mind boggling. I would say he is trying to escape reality, but…
Posted by Mickii on September 30th, 2010.
These are absolutely awesome.
Posted by Tim on September 30th, 2010.
[…] via […]
Posted by hyperrealistic still lifes « thaeger on October 1st, 2010.
It’s technically impressive, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand why people will draw what is essentially a photograph.
Posted by Anon on October 3rd, 2010.
I dont understand why people became so lazy about art… sure you could take a picutre, but some of the most amazing, talented, inspiring people in history painted what is “essentialy” a photograph.. it is a skill that has escaped us and left is with cheap 21st century post mod art that makes me want to vomit. Theirs essentialy no difference between art and design now, the talent and years of practice needed to achieve perfection have been replaced with blobs of paint on a canvas.. its depressing.
Just because we find a quick and easy way to do something doesnt mean its the best or only way.. infact technology constantly causes people to unlearn valuable skills because the technology can do it for them… sad.
Posted by aeracura on October 4th, 2010.
[…] bumbumbum | All images © Pedro […]
Posted by Pedro Campos | iGNANT on October 4th, 2010.
[…] (via) Schlagwörter:oil on canvas, öl, Pedro Campos, photorealistisch […]
Posted by Pedro Campos | paperbrains.de on October 5th, 2010.
There’s no imagination in any of these pieces. Art is supposed to inspire, all this does is make me think what a waste of time it has been producing these pictures (they are not art in my opinion, they are no different to a photograph of the same subject).
I think it takes far more skill to evoke passion, deeper meaning, and emotion than mere reproduction. I’d like to see the same person capture the raw emotion of a dramatic sunset, but I doubt that they can.
Posted by Jonny Man on October 5th, 2010.
By saying that, you prove you don’t know alot about art, you just ixnayed the whole field of still life from “art” and it happens to play a large role, good job.
Oh… and sunsets are so cliche, if everyone were painting dramatic sunsets id commit suicide because it would show just how shallow art has become.
Its really annoying how mod artists have totaly neglected art history – which is why art is such a nasty shit storm of hipster subculture and no longer holds any value or meaning to our society (which is why we will never get enough funding for the arts) – Unlike generations before us who have taken the ideals of art from the past and molded them to fit their current situation and needs, we have completely distroyed any definition of art as it was known in the past and replaced with with the easiest, quickest things we could find to describe as “emoional” … litteraly ripping any talent out of the field in order to be able to do as little work as possible and still call yourself an artist…
end rant. lol
Posted by aeracura on October 5th, 2010.
No, I did not just ixnay the whole field of still life, just photo-realistic efforts like this.
One of the points I am trying to make is that the subjects are dull and uninspiring, it’s the kind of thing a teenager would come up with for their school project.
Also, if you think sunsets are cliche then I would say you haven’t seen the ones I have, they were not photo-realistic as sunsets like that simply don’t exist in real life – it’s about escapism from reality, whether in the painting style or the subject, and that’s what art is all about for me. It’s like the difference between reading a book or watching the film adaptation, the book is pretty much always the richer, fuller experience.
Posted by Jonny Man on October 6th, 2010.
“Still life” equals trying to portray still objects as seen in real life, so now not only have you ixnayed it youve denied its definition….
Sigh… Also, I live in Saskatchewan, Canada… My Province’s motto is “Land of the living skies” because we have some of the most amazing in the world.. The most widely painted thing in a place with nothing but sky: the sky…believe me I’m not missing anything.
And escape from reality is the job of fantasy artists, surrealists and abstract artists, not artists in general. Your just stating you like specific genres for specific reasons, and putting down others you don’t understand. Thats like saying you don’t like documentaries because you can see the scenarios in real life, unlike a dramatized movie (which is alot more of an accurate comparison that yours of books to movies, they are two different mediums – both of these are the same) . Just because you like one better, doesnt mean you can discredit the other as not being a movie or lacking talent. Even you said so yourself “for me that’s what art is all about”.You need to learn how to form constructive critisizim outside of the realm of what you like and dislike. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it can be discredited as art, and something as talented as this should never be discredited as art in the first place when you think of some of the shit out there that does make it…
Anyways, point being: Its inspiring to people who enjoy still life and high amount of technicality in their art, if I found a teenager who had the diciplin to put the time and effort into work like this I would highly prais them. Just because you like a certian genre, or are more familiar with it, does not make this any less amazing in its own field. Plus it simply baffles me that anyone can put this type of dedication down… I can’t help but think it must be jealousy or extreme narccisim:S
Posted by aeracura on October 6th, 2010.
Creating art should be an enjoyable experience, and being totally anal about capturing every tiny detail it takes that enjoyment away for ordinary folk so they pick and choose what they include in their paintings. Does that make them fantasy artists just because they don’t paint everything exactly as it is in real life to the smallest detail? Of course it doesn’t.
It may well be true that I find other forms of art more interesting than still life, but I could still appreciate an interesting still life if I can see some enthusiasm and action in the brush strokes.. this piece has none, no emotion, no energy, and I still say that the subjects are dull.
Art is subjective, as the viewer I can think and say what I like about a piece, personal opinion is just that – personal, it can never be wrong. So, you like this style and I don’t, let’s just leave it at that.
You may argue all you like, you may get the final word if you wish, but I’m going to get on with the rest of my life now and I suggest you do the same. Oh and by the way, if you’re going to use silly words like ‘ixnay’ then at least use them correctly – you ixnay on/to or with, as in you should ixnay with your argument. Yes, I looked it up and I’m not afraid to admit it.
Glad you picked out something you argue me with, a missuse of a word, bravo! But you are correct, Im tired and need to dismiss myself from the headache that is you.
It entertains me that I can write two novellas and you still can’t possibly fathom the point I try to make. Also if my personal opinion was that its okay to kill babies i’m sure that wouldn’t make it right. That really isnt logical. But you obviously arn’t willing to put your slander and circular arguments behind you, and I can’t make you. So have fun spending the rest of your life believing your personal opinion is always right, ignorance is bliss!
Posted by aeracura on October 7th, 2010.
oh p.s Id love to know what an “ordinary folk” is.. that would just make my day!
Here is the amazing work of a Dutch photorealistic artist, who also excells at other styles: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Marissa-Oosterlee-Fan-Page/102306393174887
Posted by MSM on November 17th, 2010.
To everyone who is saying what art is supposed to do, or how hard this must’ve been so what is the point, please go away from the art world. You clearly have no idea what art is.
Posted by MV on November 29th, 2010.
It entertains me that I can write two novellas and you still can’t possibly fathom the point I try to make. Also if my personal opinion was that its okay to kill babies i’m sure that wouldn’t make it right. That really isnt logical. But you obviously arn’t willing to put your slander and circular arguments behind you, and I can’t make you. So have fun spending the rest of your life believing your personal opinion is always right, ignorance is bliss
Posted by shapewear on November 29th, 2010.
i believe that it is amazing that one could capture life so perfectly without a photograph. he really knows the patience of art and capturing it to the tee with a paintbrush.
keep it up and don’t mind those tasteless people who don’t appreciate real art when they see it. taking photos pish posh.
Posted by Ashley on November 29th, 2010.
Wow… 3 comments….
2) As a photographer, i must say that the composition alone of these paintings are spectacular…. (P.S. Photography IS art btw)
3) As an accountant, and as such, a very logical and detail orientated person, i find the pain-staking detail of these comfortable and soothing….
SEE… everything, IS subjective to the viewer!
Posted by Josh on November 30th, 2010.
I think that this discussion is way off the important marks. It’s a mistake to focus on whether this is or isn’t art and whether virtuoso technique, which is clearly exhibited here, makes one an artist in any sense. One thing clearly omitted in this discussion is the fact that photography is a mature art form on its own. One can’t simply grab a camera and be a good photographer. And herein lies the major problem of hyperrealist artists overall. They are human cameras, able to reproduce reality in an uncanny way. This is amazing. But they are almost universally poor photographers to begin with. This is where they fail in their effort to make meaningful pieces.
Classical still life was never “art” as we imagine it in the post 20th century way. Those artists spent years developing their skills in reproducing reality specifically because there were no cameras around to make photographs. Their patrons hired them mainly to show off their fancy stuff. As in “look at this picture of all the great things I own.” I promise you, none of those painters actually owned oranges or pheasants or any of the things they painted. They were human cameras there to record reality. It just so happened that they were master draftsmen as well.
Yes. Hyperrealists are incredibly skilled, but they are not master draftsmen. They rely on their own photography. The examples above are rather good for hyperrealist style art. But the actual paintings don’t rise above any stock photography you would find on istockphoto for $1 per download. Other hyperrealists rise no further than snapshots taken by a 12 year old with a disposable camera. Accidental compositions at best, and riddled with poor aesthetic choices throughout.
See, being technically proficient is only the means to arrive at a meaningful piece. But it isn’t enough. It also doesn’t disqualify one from being able to make meaningful artwork. Talking purely about materials and technique, is the wrong approach to take here. The content itself needs to be examined with a critical eye. Whether it’s photorealistic or a blob on a canvas.
Posted by Oren on December 1st, 2010.
I think this sort of technical genius is wasted on still life. Veering away from the normal and delving into the abstract and fantasy would be a greater use of such talents.
Paint me a dragon.
But amazing skill. Just knowing they are paintings makes them so much cooler than a photo.
Better than any of use could do, eh?
Posted by Wilde on December 6th, 2010.
[…] by admin on Dec.07, 2010, under Uncategorized Pedro Campos | Photorealist Painter | bumbumbum. […]
Posted by Photorealistic paintings « Hi, I'm Dan on December 7th, 2010.
These are really fantastic, but I must say I never saw the appeal in photorealist art–if it’s indistinguishable from a photo, what’s the point? I prefer things that are slightly more human-looking; the imperfections in a painting are what, in my opinion, make the painting great.
Also, the thing that cemented it for me that it wasn’t a photo was that most of them are too perfect–specifically the jellybean one. When have you ever seen a flawless jar of perfectly smooth jellybeans?
Posted by The White Death on December 11th, 2010.
These are simply amazing! To the artist — pay no attention to the naysayers, you do magnificent work! Sure, anyone can take a photo (I can even do that, and I’m crap with a camera), but there are a handful of people on earth that can do what this artist has done. Bravo, and keep up the fine work!
Posted by ceallaig on December 11th, 2010.
[…] Per daug realūs piešiniai […]
Posted by Sekmadienis su StumbleUpon #158 · Radiocool.lt on December 12th, 2010.
As an artist myself (albeit a young one), I must say I’m thoroughly impressed with these works. Beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. That said, this level of technical skill is undeniably stunning. All great artists need a level of technical skill- and often, the better they are at drawing what they see, the richer their other works become. I do agree that the composition isn’t spectacular, but then again, maybe the artist wanted it this way. You never know. There’s no need to argue over opinion- just take it as it is.
I drew some candles online last year (I was 14 at the time, and in no way well versed in the ways of digital art) and, honestly, they do express a bit more emotion (in my opinion) than the majority of these paintings.
here they are, in case you’re curious. http://slimber.com/index.php?image=lights.g4021
But to each his own, i suppose.
Also. Scroll down to the very bottom of this page and look in the lower left corner. Notice anything?
Posted by Misha on December 12th, 2010.
As an artist, albeit an amature in the field, i can attest to the difficulty of the above technique. Simply taking an object, any object, and reproducing it with the clarity of a camera is amazing. I mean think about, a camera captures an image in milliseconds and it is statistically an exact copy. Now take a human hand controlled by a human mind and do the exact same thing, but spread it out over days or weeks, keeping in mind that it is virtually impossible to draw a straight line let alone an entire still life without some sort of instrumental aid, and you can’t help but appreciate the skill required to create something like this. However, it has become apparent that in todays world art is becoming a rather broad topic. And in my opinion, the greats i.e. Monet, Seurat, Picasso, and even more recent Pollock, Lichtenstien, and Warhol have been left behind as people splash paint on a canvas and stick 24.00 to it. It is an outrage that the one thing that is both passionate and heartfelt as well as rigorous and exact at the same time has become so commercialized that many kids today don’t even know the the previously mentioned names let alone the many talented artists that thrive today.
Posted by jeremy on December 12th, 2010.
Wow, some people are really narrow minded about art. I have taken a painting class in which the trompe l’oeil style of painting was part of our curriculum. Let me tell ya, folks, that sh*t is HARD!! Splashing some colors on a canvas and evoking a certain emotion is easy-anyone can throw a bunch of black, red, and gray shades up there and claim to be a brooding artist. Making a picture that actually looks like something recognizable takes time, thought, and skill, and to make it photographic quality is…well, in my opinion, super-human.
Posted by Lindalmie on December 13th, 2010.
I am not an artist but a friend of mine (who most certainly is an artist) has a brilliant way of answering the “Is it art?” question.
If you are being presented with something (hanging on a wall or on an ‘art’ website, whatever the setting) as art. The question is not “Is it art?” the question becomes “Is it any good?” to which any answer is highly subjective.
Posted by not_an_artist on December 13th, 2010.
What garlic is to food, insanity is to art — The effort taken to manage such a tremendous piece is supernatural in and of itself. Thank god for people who take the time to make things like this, and thank god for the people who don’t like it for whatever reasons they may have. Together, these are the people that push all aspects of art as we know it to a much further, much more articulate, much more subjective extreme. It is supposed to be controversial, and it is supposed to strike conversation among strangers; these are the finer pleasures in art, both as an artist and as an appreciator — to discuss, to adapt, to improve and to push the boundaries of everything.
Posted by thebaron on January 3rd, 2011.
Another artist here… These paintings are stunning. There is no question that this painter studies his subjects and worked long and hard to get everything just right. Looking at them from an artist’s POV however makes my skin crawl. I’ve down photo-realistic work and understand, no, KNOW the painstaking attention to detail and the pain it can cause, it’s hard and as some have said, almost supernatural. There is certainly a beautiful lofty place for these works, but I no longer work this way. I try and go deeper into a subject, evoke emotions, or find them and try to make that the relevant subject. Here I find the comments as interesting as the pieces, perhaps more so. And isn’t that what art wants to do anyway? Make folks talk and hopefully listen? If these paintings are oversize, say 5’x10′, well…then I’d be bowled over. Anyone know the dimensions?
Posted by kitty the surf on January 14th, 2011.
Posted by Matt on January 14th, 2011.
Art is about creating beauty with a medium. I have several outlets to do this, photoshop, writing, woodburning, sewing,drawing, interior design etc. Some people like my work, others do not. That doesnt take away from the beauty I find in my own art. You may not like his work, but your own personal opinion does not keep his excellent craftmanship from being art. And you can never understand what he meant by a certain piece because art it truly in the eyes and heart of the artist, it is only admired (or not)by the beholder.
Posted by ashamal on January 14th, 2011.
i think a main point (at least for some) has been touched upon.
that being,if these were photographs i would hang them on my wall.
Posted by painter2011 on January 18th, 2011.
@aeracura and jonny man: art is what you make it
Posted by trish on February 3rd, 2011.
I am absolutely stunned at how amazing these are. What an amazing artist, with such an outstanding attention to detail, and a great understanding of texture. Intelligent and beautiful.
Posted by Mary on February 3rd, 2011.
Late to the discussion.
Someone asked the dimensions of the pieces. I checked the artist’s website, and the one with the jelly beans is 150 cm x 150 cm. In inches … that works out to 59″ x 59″ or roughly 6 feet by 6 feet. All the other ones are of a similar scale … just in a variety of dimension.
Posted by Martin on March 4th, 2011.
Oops .. excuse me on my conversion. Make that 5 ft by 5 ft.
Yet another photorealist painter weighing in here. I just want to remind people that your perceptions of these works are seriously skewed if you are only seeing images of them on a web site. You are NOT looking at paintings. You’re looking at digital representations of photographs of paintings, which themselves are typically much reduced in size and always subject to substantial variation in color, contrast, resolution, etc. depending on your monitor, the quality of the photo, the compression algorithm, and other factors. Even high-quality reproductions on paper (or canvas, for that matter) are a few steps removed from the original works of art.
If you wish to evaluate and debate these works, you owe it to yourself (and to the artists) to go to a gallery, museum, or studio in person and spend some time with the actual paintings. Their properties as hand-made physical objects are entirely lost in reproduction and you are missing MUCH more than you might think you are when you are seeing only reproductions, even if they are excellent reproductions.
Posted by Bruce Mitchell on March 8th, 2011.
Really? Are people STILL using the “Just take a picture” “what a waste of time” “I could do that with my camera” “not inspirational, not art” lines when viewing photorealism, hyperrealism or any realism for that matter?. I’ve been hearing that BS for thirty years. My response has always been “Can you do it?” silence. In my experience negative comments on realism have come from the few who can’t really get a grasp of figurative, representational painting, light shadow, form or any combination of the above themselves thus run with the abstract is godliness long winded preach. I know an art professor who gets high praise for his abstract works where people (and himself) right multiple paragraphs explaining the meaning of what they think they see in his work. Guess what? Never been able to draw a human or a bleedin’ chair for that matter. Talk about uninspiring,
Posted by Steve on March 11th, 2011.
I think these are just stunning. I wish I could learn to master light and dimensions such as this. I was in an art gallery one day and saw a metal frame hanging about 6 inches from the wall. It had a light up on the ceiling that cast a shadow of the frame upon the wall.
I’m 2 feet away from this and I’m telling my wife, “What kind of crap is this? I could hang a frame up here and sell it for 5500.00 dollars.
I then went to reach for it and my hand went through what should have been the frame and touched the wall.
The painting was of a metal frame on the wall that cast a shadow on the wall. It was so realistic it gave me shivers down my back and raised the hair on neck. NOW I know how he was able to sell for 5500.00 dollars. From literally a foot away it was hard to tell that the frame wasn’t suspended 6 inches from the wall and casting a shadow..
That, and these take some serious talent and whole lot of patience… Great stuff! I love it.
Posted by Doug on March 11th, 2011.
They are excellent and really inspiring.
Posted by Criena on March 13th, 2011.
Wow these are so so so unbelievably beautiful. The time and percision that went into making these is incredible. A photograph or snap shot of these everyday items is worth nothing anyone could take them he has taken an everyday scene and made it something exceptional , literally frozen it in time its awe inspiring.
Posted by Kies on March 15th, 2011.
Why bother going to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower when you could just see a similar easier “snapshot” of it in Vegas?
These are incredible.
Posted by Eli on March 16th, 2011.
over the internet no less
and some of the arguments here
Oh my god, the humanity
just because very few people can do something doesn’t mean shit
I bet there’s only a few people who can suck their own dick
does that make it art?
and than there’s the elitist art majors who despise everything modern failing to see that as all art forms modern art is a direct result of our modern society
so saying shit like
“which is why art is such a nasty shit storm of hipster subculture and no longer holds any value or meaning to our society”
is just pretentious bullshit
you may not like the art our society has spawned
but to say it has no value or meaning to it only proves your own ignorance
so to sum things up
this cat obviously has some mad painting skills
and some people (me included) find it a waste that he uses them on such boring and mundane subjects
while others would disagree
can’t argue taste (or lack of XD)
and you sure as hell can’t argue an inherently subjective (meaningless even) concept as art
so why bother?
Posted by zwenkwiel on March 16th, 2011.
How about this: Art is widely renowned as one of the most difficult things to define on this planet. Some see it as art, others don’t. Do we have to argue about it? Is it really that important? He presumable had fun doing it, and it provides something for a number of people, so why do we need to shout about it? Who cares if you like it or if you don’t. The point is, does the ARTIST like it? His is the only opinion that should truly matter, right?
Posted by Rhiannon on March 17th, 2011.
Please, Photo-Realism has been done, and redone. Its heyday has long been over. I wish artists would actually utilize this style for more interesting and provocative concepts, rather than just doing them for pointless things like this. I mean, seriously, Coke cans? They were painting hyper-realistic paintings of that in the 70s’ and 80s’. Maybe a more provocative still life? Maybe he could have mixed in digital elements? Maybe he could have juxtaposed hyper realism with a more expressive brushstroke? I would have appreciated it more if the artist were a little more innovative. I appreciate the work he puts into these pieces, but quite frankly it’s wasted on this type of subject matter, and any art critic would agree. They’re interesting as studies, not as gallery or museum art. If you don’t believe me, read any art history book!
Posted by JB on March 17th, 2011.
One person said that this artist has no imagination and would not call this art.
No imagination? This artist took things to the next level!
He painted extraordinary reflections; he looked at a photograph instead of the real deal. The painting is suppose to look this way.
Not an artist? Can you paint like that?
To the person who complained about the “coke cans”.
Some of the most popular art paintings in a museum are items as simple as that. For ex. Andy Wrahol’s painting of 32 Campbell soup cans.
Posted by Jessica on April 4th, 2011.
I can’t believe it. Looks like photos. Amazing.
Posted by Atom on April 4th, 2011.
Posted by ted on April 6th, 2011.
Does anyo e know if this is oil or acrylic?
Posted by Xizora on April 27th, 2011.
To the person who asked “Can you do it?”
No I can’t.
Would I? No. Waste all my time on painting a bunch of coke cans? Hell no.
Why the hell would anyone paint something so boring this technically?
This artist obviously has technical talent, but that just begs the question, why didn’t he paint something interesting? This is an insult to still life.
Posted by His talent wasted on April 28th, 2011.
Even if these were photographs, I’d put them on my wall! Especially the coke cans and jelly beans! I think they’re beautiful, and the skill is amazing! I imagine that in real life, rather than on a computer screen, and if they are the size another commenter has said they are, they would be even more incredible! Love it Also love the tiny smiley face in the bottom left hand corner of this screen that someone else pointed out!!!
Posted by Sarah on April 28th, 2011.
How can you low-life’s say that making this art was a wasted of his time? That he should’ve just taken a picture.. art is mostly about expression of YOURSELF, is it not? Pick up a paintbrush, make a brilliant piece of work and have someone tell you they wouldnt waste their time and its worthless, pointless work & see how you feel. This is incredible artwork, i wish i was this talented.
Posted by heathmeister on April 29th, 2011.
[…] realmente impresionante la obra de este artista, no cabe duda que detrás de este ilustrador existe una capacidad de observación fuera de lo […]
Posted by Pedro Campos: Hiperrealismo exquisito — Monkeyzen on April 29th, 2011.
these are fanfuckingtastic! just because they don’t invoke some feeling to connect with people these are absolutely incredible. I’ve seen paintings where there was a lot of feeling and passion and what not but they looked like crap. I applaud the people who have the patience for this.
Posted by rebecca on May 1st, 2011.
I’m unbiased when it comes to art, I like it all. I just like it all for different reasons. I paint both abstract and realism, but I couldn’t paint this realistically. If I could I would, but I just don’t have the technical skill to render something that detailed. This is amazing work, lots of skill involved here.
Posted by Elizabeth Elmore on May 4th, 2011.
I wish I could learn more about this artist: his statment and the way he works. From other artists I know working in this way, they use photographs to create their work. Which does not make it less impressive or less artistic. By the way, artists have used camera oscura since the antic times, they just discovered how to fix the image relatively recently that’s all. So artists have used pinholes camera like objects to help them with their art for a while. And realist and surealist artists still use projectors. Mabee this one does or mabee he doesn’t, the story doesn’t tell.
If the guy enjoys what he is doing, and chalenges him self to recreate realisticaly things like glass, aluminium, plastic bags and such, how can it be a waste of time? Especialy when he succeedes.
Posted by Chris on May 11th, 2011.
As I skim through the comments, I see some comments that pretty much took my words out of my mouth..All I will add is this:
I am an artist my self and I thoroughly enjoy creating hyper realistic art. Although I am no where near the caliber and skill of this artist, I understand the process of creating a photo realistic piece of art. There is a certain elation in creating this kind of art. As you watch the drawing or painting unfold before you, it is such a great feeling. A lot of you say this lacks emotion, but you cannot be right. As an artist, I see these pieces as magnificent and so skillful. It is quite a wondrous process and I encourage trying it yourself before critiquing such a skill as this.
Posted by Betsy on May 23rd, 2011.
[…] via bumbumbum, […]
Posted by Hyper Realism in Art: These Are Not Photographs! | WebUrbanist on May 24th, 2011.
Posted by Hyper Realism in Art: These Are Not Photographs! « Shou Fi Ma Fi on May 24th, 2011.
Amazing pictures, but if I was this good at painting I would try for a picture that can’t be produced by photography as opposed to pictures that appear to mimic photography. A Coca Cola bottle balanced on a 6 inch nail would be good!
Posted by Mike Maynard on May 25th, 2011.
Posted by Hyper Realism in Art: These Are Not Photographs! | BLOG on May 25th, 2011.
oh and *Ahem* Art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Posted by Sarah on June 2nd, 2011.
Art is art is art is art. It has no definition, Mr. Webster. This man may have a certain reason behind his art. A childhood experience, a death or perhaps a life. You NEVER know. Art is a photo, art is a brush, art is water on canvas, art is a chair, art is the sky, Art IS _____________________. Lets capture the REAL truth behind what it truly is and find out art for ourselves. Criticism has become an “art” of many. Yet, I believe that does not belong the the true art world.
Posted by Brenna on July 12th, 2011.
I love it. It makes me see surfaces in a new way. It gives me an enjoyment of the colors and textures that I wouldn’t have noticed if I saw them on my kitchen counter.
Posted by Lisa on July 29th, 2011.
The fact that these paintings have started such a big debate confirm that they are art. Art is ANYTHING that invokes a thought, a feeling or an idea. This debate has definitely invoked a feeling and a thought within those who claim it isn’t art. Art is not a product it’s an act… and the act of creating these paintings is art no matter if it looks like a photograph as a final product. People are so desensitized to what art truly is due to the plethora of available bad art. Though there may be bad art it still is art due to the fact that someone spent the time to do it. I could shit on a canvas and call it art and some would disagree that it’s art, however, it would be art because I claimed it so. If it pisses you off it invokes a feeling. This work is beautifully and masterfully created, painstakingly. I consider it art. All you haters either do not know what you’re talking about or are just jealous. Critique it’s quality, not whether it is or isn’t art, because if you debate it, it automatically becomes art. Therefore, you are wasting your breath.
Posted by Sean on August 13th, 2011.
Those who’ve tried to represent glass with paint will appreciate the extreme difficulty of that task…and this style of painting in general. Painting these everyday objects from a photograph with such precision is not as easy at it appears. I love this painting style as much as I love abstract art. The beauty is in the process…but that’s just me.
Posted by Gigi on August 15th, 2011.
Wow a can of cola ……………so what!
Posted by Art God on August 18th, 2011.
If you look it up, here’s what you’ll find – something like this: “The first and broadest sense of art is the one that has remained closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to ‘skill’ or ‘craft.'” There is obviously a tremendous amount of skill involved here, not to mention the eye. Try producing a “photograph” without a camera of any kind, by drawing or painting it — you’ll see what I mean.
Then you’ll read on and get something like this: “The second and more recent sense of the word art is as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art and emerged in the early 17th century. Fine art means that a skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the finer things.” I think these art works do that, no question. This doesn’t require that you fall in love with, or even like, the art work. But everyone commenting here, like it or not, has had their aesthetic sensibilities engaged, in passing judgement if no other way.
Posted by Flinbot on August 20th, 2011.
Why don’t you just take a picture? It would have been easier, and cheaper. I don’t find that masturbatory sense of self gratification that comes from showing off how technically realistic you can make something look by hand at all interesting. Is this art? I do not think so. This is merely a representation of the subjects.
Now, I cannot say that I can come even remotely close the level of technical work here, but why would anyone want to beyond trying to see how close you can possibly come to recreating and object?
Posted by Xizar on August 21st, 2011.
I think the people that continue to dismiss these paintings as “not art” or “a waste of time” are idiots. art is subjective, and of course taking a picture of these things wouldnt be the same…and quite frankly, i think those people are jealous, because this is clearly a very unique talent. That being said, i cant even imagine what it would be like to see these paintings in person, but i’m sure it would leave you trolls speachless.
Posted by niles on August 24th, 2011.
[…] reminds me a bit of this page I came across a while back: http://bumbumbum.me/2010/09/30/pedro-campos-photorealist-painter/ […]
Posted by You may have seen The "Invisible Man" Liu Bolin Before « Thoughts From Amanda Blain on April 13th, 2012.
As Salvador Dali once said about hyper realism… “sure someone can paint a photorealistic painting and the only difference between the photo and the painting would be about 6 million dollars”
Posted by Alfredo on April 30th, 2012.
well, if the words “this is not art” ever come out of your mouth, you clearly don’t understand what art is.
Posted by Mr. D on June 17th, 2012.
those of you saying this isn’t art because it doesn’t evoke emotion are the evidence against your own argument. good art should provoke thought and make people question it’s value. your passionate responses suggest this artist has been successful.
Posted by Alex on July 29th, 2012.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
bumbumbum is powered by WordPress and webdesign by funkl.