Comments on: Can you believe that all of these are paintings?

By: Scarlett

Scarlett — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:21:41 +0000

Of course they are painted. What cynics. They are also amazing and beautiful. Imagine the technical prowess needed to paint these. I also find it disturbing that the artist name is not displayed. The internet makes it so easy to rip off artist’s work. The colors are great and the detail is amazing… Suppose someone thought it would be fun to put really detailed photos online and tell folks they are “real paintings”? Is that project art? What is art. Does it mean only painting something that folks could look at and get a message from? Can art be about the technique of the artist?

In any case, I love the images. The very “ordinary” nature of them is interesting. Does the very bright range of colors indicate an artist put these together? What if the artist is a photographer? Is it still art – or craft. Who decides?

By: Really?

Really? — Thu, 19 May 2011 00:41:35 +0000

Are you guys serious? Or seriously stupid? Of course there is a camera reflection painted on there. That’s because they first take a picture of the still life and use it as a grid system to apply on the canvas. And since it’s HYPERREALISM, they have to include all the details on there, including the camera reflection. Grow some brain cells.

By: heythere

heythere — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:17:55 +0000

People who criticize this type of art as being “fake” clearly do not know the first thing about art. Art is all about the artist’s interpretation of the world around him or her, be it a photograph or an abstract painting.

There IS a camera reflection in some of them because the artists who made these made them from photographs; it is a technique called “photorealism” where the artist takes a picture and then reproduces it onto a canvas with an image projector, and then paints over the projected image. The camera was painted by the artists; that’s how hyper-realism works.

Those who just don’t believe it is not a photograph look closely. One can still tell its a painting; they are all amazing works of art, but they have a little something that’s “off” that maker the viewer realize that the image is a little different than what one would see with our own eyes.

Believing and knowing this is possible isn’t being “gullible,” just being knowledgeable about other forms of art that are not the traditional painting and drawing. Seriously people, try at least researching a little before criticizing a group of people and a form of art.

By: yourmom

yourmom — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:33:44 +0000

there are refections of people holding cameras in more than one of these.

By: APRiL J.

APRiL J. — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:37:11 +0000

You must absolutely be able to perfect technique before implementing your creativity on something that won’t turn out the way you envision it. maybe check these artists’ OTHER work before denying their creativity. how judgmental! have any of you that are denying the meaning of these paintings ever taken a single studio class?

not to mention, this is a particular art movement as aforementioned: photorealism. there is CONCEPTUAL meaning to these WORKS OF ART behind the movement. much like picasso created cubism because he was simply bored perfecting his technique. i have NO idea how anyone would even have any grounds with your facetious claims that these are not beautiful!

also, the point of creating art is to cause you to question it and get you thinking about it. needless to say, these WORKS OF ART are doing their job

ps: @artschool, this is a blog site, not a museum. there are no labels because that is boring curator work and no one is getting paid here.