Photorealism - what's your opinion?

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Linda Brandon

Steven, does this mean you want to see an artist's "point of view", for lack of a better word?

Yes, in a sense. But I usually don't care for completely self-referential work -- not because it's bad or unworthy, but because I don't have any idea what the artist is on about, so there's no communication and, so, less "fun." I enjoy seeing "an artist at work." (Thomas Beuchner's work comes to mind at the moment.)

I can imagine it being something akin to a play on an old bit of bumper sticker marginalia, to read: "If you were accused of being an artist, would your work provide enough evidence to convict?" I think it may well be that some very talented "reproducers" might get off scot free.

[Molly Sherrick Phifer]

One of the things that is not so obvious about this fellow's work is that much (if not most) of his photorealistic art is not only not done with photo references, but can't be done with photo references. He does quite a lot of high tech artwork for the military and if you look at some of that work, you'll see that he hasn't copied any pictures. That's where photorealism becomes an art. When it is used not to copy a photo, but to produce a photo "quality" image that could not (or at least not easily) be taken with a camera.
For an example, take a look at this one: Timing is Everything

Having said all that, I'm not a huge fan of PR style, but this guy is really amazing. Great thread!

[Allan Rahbek]

Molly,
This "Timing is everything" is a combination of two photos.
The scout scene is taken with the sun coming in from the right as you see on the trees and Donald Duck

[Claudemir Bonfim]

Well, I like that the same way I like a good photo, but I'd not pay for that any more than I would for a common photograph from the Mall.

[Janel Maples]

I just browsed over these comments and had to add a bit of information that I thought some of you may find interesting. I know Dru. I spent a week painting next to him at Marvin Mattelson's 2004 North Carolina portrait workshop. No photos, just a live model in front of him and his portrait was amazing. And what was worse than painting next to him? Was the fact that it was his first attempt at an oil portrait. NO FAIR.

Wonderful person, amazing artist. Amazing!!

[Steven Sweeney]

Yes, it wouldn't be hard to believe that someone with the technical skill exhibited throughout his website could rather easily translate it to other procedures, including life work -- which in fact probably seemed almost "too easy" to him. I had people like that around me at Daniel Greene's workshop, and it gave me pause to wonder if a brush handle could really be used as a weapon. (I was very insecure at the time.)

As a certified (nearly institutionalized and left for broke) aircraft aficionado and fanatic, full-size and models, I'd like to buy about half the works he has on that site.

Have to admit, though, that the hyper-detail in the airbrushed portraits still feels a little cool and clinical to me. I like to see bristles in play. This isn't peculiar to this artist, nor intended to be at all dismissive of him. Some traditional painters who take their work to the very highest levels of finish also have this effect on me, more and more.

Is anyone aware of a web page where we might see some of his life work?

[Jimmie Arroyo]

I'd like to throw in my $.02 having been an airbrush artist for many years. It seems at the time that I was airbrushing, trying to get as realistic as possible was the goal of just about every airbrush artist. It was always considered "plastic" and "fake" looking, not more than removing blemishes from Playboy model photos. There was a race to find ways on giving flesh "life". What has to be understood also, that airbrushing was not just to create fine art, it was mostly used to do textile, so creating lifelike images on t-shirts and other material was to impress the client. It was also, and making a HUGE comeback, used for automotive purposes. Any realistic image airbrushed onto the hood of a car would get anyone's attention.

It's also about money. I've never met Dru, but I strongly believe that he would not see himself as a master comprable to the old masters because he can create a phot-realistic image. He's teaching how to airbrush and achieve realistic effects with it. It's simply showing potential airbrush artists what can be done with it. I could see a lot of interest, because of the automotive boom.

Regardless how it's viewed, I give him respect for being able to do it. I got pretty close when I was airbrushing, but would add more painterly effects in the background or in the clothing. All that got me was computer magazines wanting info on what programs I was using to manipulate my photos. As soon as I told them it was airbrushed, not a photo, I did'nt hear from them again.

There are very few airbrush artists that have made a big impact in the art world. H.R. Giger, creator of "Alien" may be the most known. His work surpasses the idea that it has been airbrushed. When airbrushed work is viewed, it is considered "airbrushed", not "acrylic", which has always been it's downfall.

I see nothing wrong with what he's doing. It's not something I would want on my wall, but it's still a great accomplishment.

ps. I actually remember seeing Dru's name in the online list, but he never participated and his name is'nt on the member list. Spooky.

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I see nothing wrong with what he's doing. It's not something I would want on my wall, but it's still a great accomplishment.

That's right Jimmie, his work is great, but I prefer yours on my wall.

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Jimmie Arroyo

ps. I actually remember seeing Dru's name in the online list, but he never participated and his name is'nt on the member list. Spooky.

I don't know if he was ever on board here, though if so, an extended period of inactivity might have resulted in omission of his name from the member list, in the course of one of the housecleaning, software-update makeovers.

You might have seen this work elsewhere, too. I know that virtually this same thread (names changed to protect the innocent, if any), examining the same images and raising the same issues, was generated a long time ago on the studioproducts.com forum, the proprietor of which is an illustrator, so the thread had a different flavor.

[Janel Maples]

After Marvin's class, where he learned about this site, Dru tried to sign up as a member but he told me he was not accepted. If I remember correctly it was because his work did not fit the definition of traditional portraiture.