«

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214

On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>

Very interesting work.
It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo work
look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make their
photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.

--
PeterN

On 01/29/2013 11:40 PM, RichA wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>




Very good, here is someone else doing something similar:


http://www.bigpaperairplane.com/



--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

PeterN wrote:
> On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>>
>
> Very interesting work.
> It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
> work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
> their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.

I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs. I have
looked about but other than the materials used and some step-by-step images
showing drawings in progress I cannot find anything saying just how he
works.

In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that you get
from using various focal length lenses. For example, one portrait shows the
"big nose" effect of a face taken with a wide(ish) lens held close to the
subject but many show the slightly flat effect of a short telephoto a
distance back.

If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he doesn't it
is even more so but then the question would be; if he has such command of
lighting and perspective why imitate that of the camera?

David

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:31:53 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
<> wrote:

>PeterN wrote:
>> On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>>>
>>
>> Very interesting work.
>> It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
>> work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
>> their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.
>
>I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs. I have
>looked about but other than the materials used and some step-by-step images
>showing drawings in progress I cannot find anything saying just how he
>works.

It states, in the clip, that he sometimes starts with a photograph but
often works from memory.

>In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that you get
>from using various focal length lenses. For example, one portrait shows the
>"big nose" effect of a face taken with a wide(ish) lens held close to the
>subject but many show the slightly flat effect of a short telephoto a
>distance back.
>
>If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he doesn't it
>is even more so but then the question would be; if he has such command of
>lighting and perspective why imitate that of the camera?
>
>David
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:52:54 -0500, Tony Cooper <>
wrote:
: On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:31:53 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
: <> wrote:
:
: >PeterN wrote:
: >> On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
: >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
: >>>
: >>
: >> Very interesting work.
: >> It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
: >> work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
: >> their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.
: >
: >I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs. I have
: >looked about but other than the materials used and some step-by-step images
: >showing drawings in progress I cannot find anything saying just how he
: >works.
:
: It states, in the clip, that he sometimes starts with a photograph but
: often works from memory.

Which puts him in the same class, in his skill area, with those guys who can
tell you, in a couple of seconds, what day of the week Christmas falls on in
the year 3517.

: >In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that you get
: >from using various focal length lenses. For example, one portrait shows the
: >"big nose" effect of a face taken with a wide(ish) lens held close to the
: >subject but many show the slightly flat effect of a short telephoto a
: >distance back.
: >
: >If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he doesn't it
: >is even more so but then the question would be; if he has such command of
: >lighting and perspective why imitate that of the camera?

Because that commands attention. The video says that his pictures sell for
upwards of £10,000. He's 27 years old. It's impossible to imagine being that
young again, with that kind of talent. I can only dream that even one of my
five grandchildren can somehow get off to such a start by that age.

Our 7-year-old grandson got an iPad for his birthday. He told Martha this
afternoon that he hasn't downloaded many apps yet, but ran across several
games that look interesting. When I was seven, I knew the alphabet, could
recognize at least as many words as the average golden retriever, and knew
where to catch the Drummond Street bus home (and what a nickel looked like,
since that was the fare).

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:52:54 -0500, Tony Cooper
> <> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:31:53 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> PeterN wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting work.
>>>> It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
>>>> work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
>>>> their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.
>>>
>>> I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs.
>>> I have looked about but other than the materials used and some
>>> step-by-step images showing drawings in progress I cannot find
>>> anything saying just how he works.
>>
>> It states, in the clip, that he sometimes starts with a photograph
>> but often works from memory.
>
> Which puts him in the same class, in his skill area, with those guys
> who can tell you, in a couple of seconds, what day of the week
> Christmas falls on in the year 3517.
>

I didn't see any video but went to his blog and web page. Extraordinary
stuff. I would rate him well above the "idiot savant" skills of lightning
calculators, those who can play any song that was heard once etc. He may
well have some of that kind special memory as well but he is no one trick
pony.

>>> In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that
>>> you get from using various focal length lenses. For example, one
>>> portrait shows the "big nose" effect of a face taken with a
>>> wide(ish) lens held close to the subject but many show the slightly
>>> flat effect of a short telephoto a distance back.
>>>
>>> If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he
>>> doesn't it is even more so but then the question would be; if he
>>> has such command of lighting and perspective why imitate that of
>>> the camera?
>
> Because that commands attention. The video says that his pictures
> sell for upwards of £10,000. He's 27 years old. It's impossible to
> imagine being that young again, with that kind of talent. I can only
> dream that even one of my five grandchildren can somehow get off to
> such a start by that age.
>

Maybe, I suspect that it has little to do with public attention and more to
do with how he sees the world right now. I suggest with that talent he
could probably adopt any style and means of collecting and assembling images
he chose. It will be interesting to see what happens to his style over the
years as he comes to terms with recognition and success.

> Our 7-year-old grandson got an iPad for his birthday. He told Martha
> this afternoon that he hasn't downloaded many apps yet, but ran
> across several games that look interesting. When I was seven, I knew
> the alphabet, could recognize at least as many words as the average
> golden retriever, and knew where to catch the Drummond Street bus
> home (and what a nickel looked like, since that was the fare).
>
> Bob

Yes there are many opportunities for the youngens now, though I am not sure
being technologically precocious necessarily expands creativity.

David

On Jan 30, 4:31*pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> PeterN wrote:
> > On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>
> > Very interesting work.
> > It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
> > work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
> > their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.
>
> I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs. *I have
> looked about but other than the materials used and some step-by-step images
> showing drawings in progress I cannot find anything saying just how he
> works.
>
> In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that you get
> from using various focal length lenses. *For example, one portrait shows the
> "big nose" effect of a face taken with a wide(ish) lens held close to the
> subject but many show the slightly flat effect of a short telephoto a
> distance back.
>
> If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he doesn't it
> is even more so but then the question would be; if he has such command of
> lighting and perspective why imitate that of the camera?

Because we have enough abstract art from untalented people to last
forever?

RichA wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:31 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> PeterN wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
>>
>>> Very interesting work.
>>> It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
>>> work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
>>> their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.
>>
>> I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs.
>> I have looked about but other than the materials used and some
>> step-by-step images showing drawings in progress I cannot find
>> anything saying just how he works.
>>
>> In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that
>> you get from using various focal length lenses. For example, one
>> portrait shows the "big nose" effect of a face taken with a
>> wide(ish) lens held close to the subject but many show the slightly
>> flat effect of a short telephoto a distance back.
>>
>> If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he
>> doesn't it is even more so but then the question would be; if he has
>> such command of lighting and perspective why imitate that of the
>> camera?
>
> Because we have enough abstract art from untalented people to last
> forever?

Non-abstract (representational) art does not need to imitate the
perspectives of a camera. Many fine classic paintings and drawings use
perspectives that make us think we are seeing a scene in a "real" way that
is in fact not real in the sense of being a projection of 3D reality on a
plane.

D

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:41:03 +1100, "David Hare-Scott" <>
wrote:
: RichA wrote:
: > On Jan 30, 4:31 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
: >> PeterN wrote:
: >>> On 1/30/2013 12:40 AM, RichA wrote:
: >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21234214
: >>
: >>> Very interesting work.
: >>> It is ironic that the photo realists strive to make there non=photo
: >>> work look like a photograph. And many photo artists strive to make
: >>> their photos look like paintings, or pencil sketches.
: >>
: >> I would be interested to know if the artist works from photographs.
: >> I have looked about but other than the materials used and some
: >> step-by-step images showing drawings in progress I cannot find
: >> anything saying just how he works.
: >>
: >> In some cases the image seems to show the perspective effects that
: >> you get from using various focal length lenses. For example, one
: >> portrait shows the "big nose" effect of a face taken with a
: >> wide(ish) lens held close to the subject but many show the slightly
: >> flat effect of a short telephoto a distance back.
: >>
: >> If he does work from photos his work is remarkable enough, if he
: >> doesn't it is even more so but then the question would be; if he has
: >> such command of lighting and perspective why imitate that of the
: >> camera?
: >
: > Because we have enough abstract art from untalented people to last
: > forever?
:
: Non-abstract (representational) art does not need to imitate the
: perspectives of a camera. Many fine classic paintings and drawings use
: perspectives that make us think we are seeing a scene in a "real" way that
: is in fact not real in the sense of being a projection of 3D reality on a
: plane.

But if this guy produces work that's "not real" by that definition sometime in
the future, we'll at least have the knowledge that it's not because he
couldn't do it in the "real" way. We don't have that certainty with the
producers of some (most?) of the "not real" art of the past.

Take Anna Robertson ("Grandma") Moses, for example. I admit that she's my
artistic idol, because she started her career as a professional painter when
she was almost as old as I am. But her work lacks realistic perspective, and I
don't doubt that it's mainly because she never learned how to do it correctly.
She got away with it because people liked the originality of her work and the
unerring sense of how to use the bold colors that she brought to the table.
Many artists could not (and should not) have brought that off.

Don't even get me started on the *abstract* "art" of the last hundred years or
so. :^|

Bob