Can you believe that all of these are paintings?


You will be amazed to know that these pictures are actually paintings. They are the works of several hyper-realist painters like Roberto Bernardi, Eric Christensen and Steve Mills.

They all started painting when young and after many years of practice they reached a high level of realistic painting. Looking at the paintings, especially the ones with soda cans or candy bars, you will maybe have a hard time believing that it is painted and not photographed.

Realistic painting is to be found as street art as well, represented by these amazing 3D paintings.


trailer-paint tea-paint strawberie-paint paiting-store paiting-candy paint-paint paint-food paint-dishes paint-candy money-paint glass-lemon-paint glass-and-pencil-paint fruit-paint food-paint bulletin-board-paint booze-drink 2mins-paint


  1. LMAO. Just because somebody sez they’re actual “paintings” doesn’t mean they are. “Did you know that the word GULLIBLE can’t be found in any dictionary?!”
    If I own a vineyard and want to advertise, do I commission a painting for 10’s of thousands of dollars, or buy a photo from a place like dreamstime for 5 bucks??? And the trailer? Why would ANY type of artist do such a detailed painting of such a BORING topic when they could just take a photo? Can you say “Hoax”?

  2. No one on that site believes they are I’m I’m rather sceptical to that a paint brush, even with 1 hair on it, can go down to that level of detail. Even a 1 haired brush done by a robot would struggle against a printer and camera for that detail.

  3. There’s some good, hyper-realistic paintngs here.

    Endigo: You might not want to believe that people can paint subjects in such a realistic manner, but I’ve seen work like this in real life and believe me, you’d swear that it was a photo unless you looked closely.

    As for the trailer, why not? You might find it boring, but there must have been something about the subject that the artist liked and wanted to capture. Either way, they did accomplish a big goal, which has been getting people to talk about it.

  4. It seems so cheap to just find anything and then make a photographic representation of it. It lures more people in because their amazed OH WOW THATS A PAINTING? Sure they’re talented but wheres the creativity? I’ve seen many people draw/paint photographically, what makes me want to remember any of the artists specifically when there’s no originality in their work?

  5. i don’t know what is the use of this why should you paint something which looks exactly like a photo ?

  6. I love art, but what’s the point in painting something to look exactly like a photo? How is that art?

  7. to counter surrealism. why not. the composition in itself is creative, maybe even to bring up the exact point of why they did a ‘boring’ scene. but thats not really the point. the name itself explains its intentions. stop analising everything and just enjoy the skill…

  8. It could be argued that these paintings are documenting ordinary parts of life that would otherwise be overlooked. The art is in the appreciation of what others take for granted on a day-to-day basis. For example, taking a picture of some cans of soda won’t force you to notice all of the small details that each can has – painstakingly recreating those details in a painting, however, will.

    If you’re thinking why bother painting something to look like a photo, why not instead ask how people can make whole careers out of throwing balls into hoops? Or why people enjoy watching others throw balls into hoops? The answer is simple: they are skilled at it, and others revere the talent that they themselves may not possess. These paintings should similarly be admired because they display the amazing capabilities of the artist.

  9. @Lisa “what’s the point in painting something to look exactly like a photo? How is that art?”

    Who says this isn’t art? What is the exact definition of art? This artist portrays his creativity and extremely detailed skill in portraying realistic pieces. I mean, I go to an art museum and point to a painting with a single line on it and say “well, how is that art, even I can draw a single line.” its all in the artist’s point of view.
    I find these compositions amazing.

  10. No art there… Technically impressive, but hey, a printing machine can do that.

    And those who don’t believe those are actual paintings should maybe go out sometime. You’ll see humans doing great things.

  11. It certainly is art, and it certainly is talent, but here’s my issue with. These images look “photorealistic” because they were likely painted from photos. That’s the only way one could get around the issue of shifting light and shadow as the earth rotates. As such, the images are as a camera sees the world and not how a human eye sees it. Before the use of photography in painting, artists (especially impressionists) were forced to paint quickly to capture the image before it’s gone forever. The result was as much shaded buy the artists perception and ideals as it was by reality. Ever the most realistic of realists had a tenancy to embellish the image. This is because, without a photo to freeze time for them, light passed through the eye to the mind, and from there to the canvas, and it is the perception of the mind that ALWAYS alters the end result to something individual to each artist.

  12. For those who do not believe these are real paintings, see the websites, blogs or pages of the FB. Many of them show these paintings in progress.
    It has always painted realism in the entire history of art.

  13. First things first, I’m struggling to find the name of the Painter. Which is disgusting, His name and a title should be next to every piece. Second, Of course they are painted dont be dumb. to answer all the why questions, The subjects in each painting are not particularly exotic, because the paintings are lowest common denominates. Both The Queen of England and I from time to time have experienced each one of the subjects, they are international.

  14. @alice it would only make sense that you would be able to see the camera reflection. the person is trying to paint as realistically as they can…

  15. I think that most of you are jealous if you don’t believe this is real. If you can’t even fathom doing this, how could anyone else do it, right?

    Also, if you look through history, there are plenty of things that have been painted that made people ask “why?”. That’s a lot of the reasoning behind it.

    The people that painted these, and yes someone painted them, are probably very excited and happy about all of your comments. That is probably exactly what he or she wanted.

    I am an artist and I have seen this work done. Yes, it is a photograph that they are painting from most of the time, and that is probably why you can see (if you really can see) they camera in the reflection.

  16. its good, but i almost wonder as to the point of it. the spur of consumer art sort of had its day. if art is to progress then there has to be some motion beyond pop cans, no matter how real looking they are. this feels like warhol redone with none of the original panache. but it is amazing.

  17. i’m not sure if it was meant. but there’s a camera reflection in the candy machine one :\ anyone that details so much they put a camera in the photo obviously has no life. or is a LIE. like the cake.
    believe what i say.
    i am Jesus.

  18. the artist has a reason to put the camera reflections in the paintings. he isn’t trying to copy the world from our eye’s view, but he is trying to copy photos, which have reflections in them. he wants the reflection of the camera to be there, it helps prove his point of copying the photos to the extreme.

    and yes, they look realistic, but do they look like photos? no. they are definitely paintings. photos always have a distinct look, even if manipulated to look like a painting, it will still resemble a photo. and if any of you have ever seen a photo realistic painting compared to the actual photo, you would know what i’m talking about.

    and those of you who think it’s boring? it’s not about what it is showing, it’s about the context of the piece. you need to use that thing that is inside your skull (you know your brain?) to think about pieces like this. it’s not about the trailer… but about what may be in the trailer, or who lives in the trailer, what a trailer represents to you as a person, etc etc.

    some of you need to get some culture in your life and go to an art museum.

  19. To: Endigo Montoya (fourth comment from the top.)
    Theres googles dictionary which includes the word GULLIBLE. Just type define: GULLIBLE in the search bar. ha! You thought that just because you state the obvious (the pictures are not painted) nobody would pay attention to the rest of you comment? Well think again mister.

  20. They are stunning, though why paint so precise of everyday objects, why not paint something beautiful.


  21. of course i belive, i only dont belive that he do the same or beter with out using a real foto and the new Mixer brush tool from photoshop, that makes any noob look like a pro.

  22. This is where the Internet ruins art, Seeing these paintings in person would make you go WOW, instead of looking at them on a computer screen and small. Seeing paintings like these in real life lets you see the “ART” in them, you see the details in a different way, reducing them down into photographs for online viewing really ruins them. Get off your asses and go look at real art.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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?

  27. Endigo, you’re an idiot. You are just jealous that you cannot create these masterpieces. Artists are amazing and can create so many things. It takes years and years for them to finally get where they are. Stop being so ignorant.

Leave a Reply