Amazing Hyper-Realist Still Life Painters
Posted in: Paintings | By: Recave | 156 Comments »
Hyperrealism is a genre of painting and sculpture resembling a high resolution photograph. Hyperreal paintings and sculptures are not strict interpretations of photographs, nor are they literal illustrations of a particular scene or subject. Instead, they utilize additional, often subtle, pictorial elements to create the illusion of reality. We present below sample work from some of the best hyper-realist painters out there.
Roberto Bernardi
Roberto Bernardi was born in Todi in 1974. His first works date from the mid eighties, and whilst a young student he dedicated himself to the study of Renaissance painting and pictorial technique, which later proved to be extremely important in the development of his personal creativity. In 1993 he moved to Rome, where he worked as a restorer in the church of San Fransesco a Ripa. After this experience, he dedicated himself full time to the creation of his own hyper-realist works.
Eric Christensen
Christensen began to develop his interest in painting, as well as botany, classical music, and gourmet cooking as a child in Salt Lake City, Utah. Over time he has acquired a commanding knowledge in each of these fields, which has blended to make him the preeminent artist of today. In addition to his interests, Christensen also derives inspiration from the wine country surrounding his home which is invariably portrayed in his paintings.
Steve Mills
Born March 28, 1959 in Boston, MA. Raised as a child on Martha’s Vineyard, MA, his family moved to Walpole, MA as a young teen though he has continued to summer on Martha’s Vineyard.Every child drew when young, though Mills requested a pencil over crayons to get better detail. This fascination with detail became his calling card. He sold his first drawing at the age of 11 and has been selling ever since.
His early paintings were mostly of landscapes, which were influenced by the works of Andrew Wyeth. Photorealism really became his interest through the work of Richard Estes after seeing a show in Boston, MA. Since then he has pursued this passion, having studied, met and even displayed with some of the great masters of photorealism.
Pedro Campos
Strongly influenced by the work of Richard Estes.
Tom Martin
Tom Martin is a 23 year old hyperrealist painter from the UK.
Jason Degraaf
Jason is a Quebec, Canada based Photorealistic artist.
Mark Goings
A Realism painter whose work has been featured in Galleries all over the world including the Plus One Gallery in London
Stunning!
These are amazing. I want to paint in this style for my senior show. It’s great to have more references. Thank you for posting this!
A profound question poses regarding the fine line between applied arts and fine arts. A conjunction of adjectives which dwell in the realm of what can be considered the explicit of something predictable or the implicit usually closer to a world of unpredictability. This are boundaries interesting to crossover as far we can understand the use of second generation images, the idea of stage work and lastly, the paradigm inherent to the use of ghost images. Complexity, richness and depth are closer to a notion of transition where variations of form act upon as catalyst of organic value or internal movement. The temptation is probably in the direction of setting examples where the exhibited work can be a starting point.
Nicelly said, Alexander. But for me it seems like a big waste of time. Why they dont simply take a picture and go use the rest of the time to CREATE something new?
You got a point. Why don’t we all stop wasting our time and start doing something for real like mural pictorial work which can truly enrich our souls. What happened to all the wonderful Mexican Muralist who impregnated the history of the Zócalo? What happened to all the fresco vaulted ceilings translated into sandwich like high-rises? What happened to all the notion of urban planning based on walking distance rather than wasting your time on an undefined freeway? What happened to our nature of transcendence left to the will of others? What happened to our own free will? What happened to the Gulf of Mexico? What happened to the additional 18 cracks spilling oil into the ocean? I guess your right, we are wasting our time!
Alexander, fuck off, pretentious fag. If you want to say something just fucking say it directly. A lot of words for such a meaningless comment.
Good advice is always recommendable:
• Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
• Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
• No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.
• Only the shallow know themselves.
• Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.
• The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.
• The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.
• The truth is rarely pure and never simple.
• There are only two kinds of people who are really fascinating – people who know absolutely everything, and people who know absolutely nothing.
• We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
• Man kills the thing he most loves, the coward kills with the word and the brave kills with the sword.
alex, why can’t u just appreciate others hard works ?
don’t be too skeptical and try to open up your mind for others idea..
maybe this not important for you alexander
but for some people, this is worth his entire life..
learn to respect others !
so don’t screw around, make some art for yourself ..!
or you don’t have any ?
Back to Alexanders first comment — I haven’t the slightest idea what point he was trying to make. Can anyone clarify for me? Thanks.
Excuse me, are you actually reading your own words? First of all, you hide yourself behind none traceable channel. Second, you insult me out of gratuity. Thirdly, you put words into my mouth out of context which really makes me wonder your levels of reading comprehension or bluntly corrosive intentions. In addition, before any possible dialogue or what could be understood as a vague idea of argument exposition, try to make an effort and inform yourself a little bit more before you “spill it all out”.
Take advice my friend; this is not a back porch private conversation. Public forums require minimum levels of civility and proper language. You are not only insulting my person but in the process, the exhibiting artist and if it ever occurred, primarily you are insulting your own dignity.
Lastly, art is not the story of individual or personal necessities. It is the consensus of many which allow fellow artist to transcend through artistic manifestation. In return, we as public, observers enrich ourselves so genuine dialogue may frankly take place.
i agree with Sandra. its nice work but there is a lack of originality. no feeling. why not just take a photo.
Uber cool but this is not art, it is hyper shit.
Silly Roberto! Photos are not drawings! Silly, silly you!
Reading the facts about the artists and the type of paintings that they do answers some of the above questions. Each person has their own way of expressing themselves.
They are really interesting looking and I know I could never do anything like that! I recreate vintage toys and dolls from early 20th century patterns as well as dresses and aprons from that era,but can’t draw or paint very well.
I admire what other people can do. Its fun to learn about why and how they create things.
Alexander Sutalov:
If you could paint as well as you bullshit, you might be able to produce something of this quality. As you can’t you hide behind a dictionary to feel a misplaced sense of superiority.
So I guess whatever you produce you can justify it’s worth and existence through a thesaurus of cosmic significance. Exponentially bullshitting your way through life. Go fuck yourself.
We are definitely living the last days of the empire!
I agree with asdfas – Alexander Sutulov just saying shit, only with clever words (or at least he thinks they are clever). Man, just get a life. nobody cares.
Wow, thank you for making such a good case for why people should leave America. It is so often full of assholes who like to insult good people living in other countries like Sutulov, although they have never met him, and while he is trying to make contributions to a serious discussion of art. What gives?
Seriously, good on you Alexander. I don’t know if these people realized you weren’t disrespecting the artists but rather adding simple input on the work. Positive at that. If anyone here actually attended an art college or institution that requires that sort of critique, they’d understand.
Everyone else, read up on some art history before you go bashing these works, they speak volumes to me and are a welcome piece in our collective artistic heritage.
I think what is most fascinating here is how the subtle differences between these works and what one would expect in a photograph stand out. Even here with so much attention to “realism” the perception of the artist still comes through.
I greatly enjoy Eric Christensen’s work with the 2 wine glasses and cake, its cool to see how he draws our attention to the glass refraction effect by exaggerating it.
That and $2.50 by Steve Mills is just excellent. I can tell instantly it not a photo, but still its so “right.”
As for posters here working their egos, just ignore them and lets pay attention to the art.
Holy shit, that Alexander guy needs to get his ass tossed around. Who the fuck is this guy?
none of these pictures would make an interesting photo, so what is the point other than gee whiz? and i guess somewhere in his opaque strutting language Alex might be making a good point, but I haven’t the patience to weed through it. but still, i’ll give him more credit than the people going haw haw dayyum it look like a pitcher.
These images may or may not make interesting photographs, depending on the point of view and interest of the artist and observer, however by communicating every day scenes which some may take as banal and tangible they are drawing attention to the wealth of detail, and in some cases beauty, which we miss in our every day lives. Its an interesting juxtaposition to historical art pieces which were used to communicate aspirational or ephemerable concepts, mostly in order to draw attention to power (wealth, religion etc.). That is just the point of view of one person however (with no art school background or art history education so please do not flame me for my opinions).
As for alexander, if anyone reads the post his original comment is positive. His eloquence which at times borders on useless levels of locquatiousness may be an art form to him, which he is free to practice without prejudice. I would however appreciate more susinct commenting…
(and for those who may not spot it, this post is writen with purposeful irony…)
This comment thread is like watching the movie Idiocracy. “OMG, he used big words!! What a fag!” Hilarious, yet sad.
Nice trolling, Alexbro.
I just think they’re fucking awesome. I enjoy looking at them knowing that someone painted them and that humans have that talent
and if word got out that they were actually phony I would feel cheated. If they’re real, I can see why the artists picked the scenes they did — they look really fun to paint (if I could do it). To me, art communicates, so this fits my definition. 10/10 
Alexander’s comments are justified and reasonable. I think he draws fire upon himself by using college-level ideas to communicate to grade-level minds.
I am from “another country” and I disagree with Alextroll.
I cannot understand why people bash hyper-realist painting on the base that you can get the same effect by taking a picture. This is the same to say that photography is NOT a form of art. What an idiocy! If anything hyper-realist painting have MORE merit than other styles of painting because the artist not only has to be able to compose a photograph, he or she has to have the amazing skill to render it in a different medium. This is much more valuable than other “creative” artists that dwell on abstract shit and call it “art”
…. I find it fascinating.
Pictures taken by a camera still struggle to capture the absolute brilliance of light and color as seen by the naked eye and these paintings seem to me brighter almost. So, in a way, more realistic to me than most photographs. However, I’m a painter and a scientist so any study of the natural, if every day, brings something to the table from which one can learn.
Basically, it’s about as boring and uninspired as every day life and nature. To stop and appreciate the essence of everything around you is, to me, as fascinating as it gets. I love this stuff so much.
Obvious troll is obvoius….come on people. Don’t let Alexander win that easily…..
Why isnt anthony brunelli on this list?
I have a confession to make. Yes, I am an art critic (and a pedantic one at best) but I have good reason for it. When I was younger, my father was a brutal man. Whenever he caught me painting he would beat me, shouting “Goddamit boy! I’ll make sure you’ll never hold a brush again.” Such a recondite man, I never will understand him.
It was a difficult time for me. I had to give up my painting, and begin work in a coal mine. I, literally, never saw the light of day for many days and months. It was the worst of times, yet it was also the best of times. As my creative desire waned, my ability of criticizing others waxed. I quit my job mining coal, and went to all the finest art galleries and exhibitions, spreading the seeds of my genius all the while.
Unfortunately, this was not appreciated by many, as they were lesser beings and could not fathom the superiority of my intellect. Again, I took the path of a pariah. I am now relegated to the outskirts of society, forced to leave these condescending comments in the hope that I may find a kindred spirit. One who, just as I have, was cast out from the high and lofty ranks of fine art to the low and artistically insular depths of realist painting.
Alex thank you for your input, we need more people like you. The fact that you have generated such a large fear response is evidence of this need. People fear what they need, especially the stuff that will make them better.
Most of you guys have missed the point, I think. If you look carefully, these are not like photos at all, which begs the question: what are they like? Me, I see the depiction of the endless and futile struggle against nature in search of perfection, which, ultimately, produces results which are entirely self referential and, finally, empty of meaning. Many of the reflections show vast, expansive, empty spaces of repetitive, pristine looking architecture. That is a clue, for me.
The point is: why take a photo of a photo? Why reproduce a reproduction? I think it’s a comment on branding, consumerism, perception, and how we are so many steps removed from nature that it only exists in our imaginations – a reproduction of a reproduction.
None of these paintings are actually realistic. They use photographic elements to create an idealised distortion, and they are ultimately unsettling to look at. Increasingly, this is what (commercial) photography is becoming, too. It is as if we are trying to create the platonic world of idealised objects, but all of our works are empty.
What is missing is not just decay and defect, but a *point* to the conversation with the viewer. It is like the brand on the coke can. It says nothing and it goes nowhere, and it does it deafeningly.
Alex: I wanna party with youuuu!!! I wanna party with youuu!!!!
but really, all this started because of one asshole. these people are not funny. they are sad. why dont the haters stop hating.
Alex: write a book. this is not sarcasm. id read it.
The problem with hyper-realism is that it cannot be appreciated until it is seen from up close. The breathtaking feelings that a hyper-realist piece evokes when seen in real life is muddled by the computer screen…
so this is fake, you can clearly see the pixels in every “painting”…jeeeeeeeeeeepp…
Alexander: that was funny
Kristal: Good point. To me, the search for the perfect reproduction, although a merit in itself for the search, may be in the end empty. But then I question myself: and what isn’t? One can rationalize life and think it pointless and has no final merit and conclude that it is all a waste. I prefer not to go there, although I struggle, since it immediately transforms all thoughts into cynicism and negative values. But it seems many find the search for perfection a beacon, empty it may be, using it as a point of meaning. I agree that’s what many of the commercial production is becoming, since it fits well into the corporate, as appearance of perfection is easy to measure, judge, and finally set a price to. I’m not sure about creating a platonic world, I think it is more about being practical. Hyper-realism has a sort of mixed emotional response for me, the immediate awe at the detail and technical precision of the hyper-perfect reproduction, and, through the well selected objects on these paintings, the kind of feeling one would usually perceive as nostalgia: pointless missing of the subject, knowing it will never be like that (ever/again) but wanting it to be more than it is (was).
u can see the pixles cuz they had to be uploaded onto the conputer, they r really good though i suspect some may be touched up etc
I think Alexander Sutulov has made a very profound point: art can be found anywhere, as proven in his trolling. This forsaken genius, this Jesus Christ among men surely has many lessons to spread among those conscious lambs, and those who nay say are simply blind and unworthy, though even then they become victims, unwilling exhibits of his masterful art. A true troll at work. Bow down, ladies and gentlemen.
To be honest, realistic painting is not that difficult. It’s a exercise in patience more than anything. Picasso had mastered realistic painting by the time he was 16. Then he moved on to finding new, original ways to express himself visually & creatively.
Most of these works look like advertising images. They really don’t challenge. If one is to paint realistically then composition and content is key. Steve Mills has some nice work. Most of the rest don’t do a thing for me.
Alexander Sutulov is a pretentious blowhard. Your lips are moving but you are not saying anthing. And you’re a compulsive liar.
The details of my life are quite inconsequential… very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess in the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking- Alexander, I highly suggest you try it.
ii guess some are done from photographs because the naked eye doesn’t see the backgrounds as blurry only a camera does. computers can paint in this fashion now also . making things look like a photo.
I’ve only one final communiqué to you, apostates of transcendence, and I shall reveal it nigh time, but for now – just a premise!
Trolololo lololo lololo lololol ooooooooooo trolololo ololo lolol olololaaaaaaaaaa! Huaaahahaha huahahahaha hehehehe hu hahahahehe!
This is was it’s all about. The fact that we are all here discussing, dissecting and interacting due to an idea from artist in some other part of the world that was brought into our reality and now shared with the rest of the world proves that this form of art is not be negligible. It helps us see not only how the artist sees the world as an individual but through our discussion allows us to see the human thought en masse.
What I see in these paintings:
Through the medium and skill displayed, I am in awe. The feeling(s) that it projects as some mentioned, they are probably the most muted I have ever seen (only speaking about the ones with brands and/or logos), with only one that Kristal touched upon.
Thousands of years from now (if they still exist), we will look back at these beautiful creations and understand one of the most exciting and darkest times of mankind.
Alex is the Perez Hilton of the art world. You may not necessarily like what he has to say, but the more you criticize him the more ammunition you hand to him to make you all look like a bunch of tools. Well done Alex. I by no means am no art expert but even I could tell his critique of the above pictures were held in a positive light.
I think what Kristal said in #35 was right on the money. I think it’s easy to say “why not just take a picture” when you’re looking at a small image on the internet.
It’s a refreshing change of pace from the pop surrealists, a tone of clear awareness, eyes open to the consumer’s expectation of ideal forms. Standing in galleries looking at hyper-real canvases my thoughts certainly weren’t about why the artist didn’t simply blow up a photograph. I was struck by the intensely kinetic energy a still life could offer, especially as an art viewer in the 21st century who is more used to cubist flowers and impressionist landscapes than figurative still lifes.
Alexander Sutulov said at 12:15 pm on July 18th, 2010: I have a confession to make. Yes, I am an art critic (and a pedantic one at best) but I have good reason for it. When I was younger, my father was a brutal man. Whenever he caught me painting he would beat me, shouting “Goddamit boy! I’ll make sure you’ll never hold a brush again.” Such a recondite man, I never will understand him.
It was a difficult time for me. I had to give up my painting, and begin work in a coal mine. I, literally, never saw the light of day for many days and months. It was the worst of times, yet it was also the best of times. As my creative desire waned, my ability of criticizing others waxed. I quit my job mining coal, and went to all the finest art galleries and exhibitions, spreading the seeds of my genius all the while.
Unfortunately, this was not appreciated by many, as they were lesser beings and could not fathom the superiority of my intellect. Again, I took the path of a pariah. I am now relegated to the outskirts of society, forced to leave these condescending comments in the hope that I may find a kindred spirit. One who, just as I have, was cast out from the high and lofty ranks of fine art to the low and artistically insular depths of realist painting.
How stupid. Why spend hundreds of hours painting a super realistic painting. Might as well buy a five dollar disposable Camera and lie.
These idiots have wasted their life.
These remind me of still life paintings from the Netherlands in the 17th Century. The purpose of these paintings was to counterfeit the real world and to have such skill that you can actually fool people. As an artist I can’t really see myself going this route, it seems very meticulous, which painting can be sometimes, but at least for me the pay off is making something tangible from the intangible (ideas). That said, I don’t think these are just simple replications with no purpose whatsoever, there seems to be a theme for each of the artists – commodities, trailer homes, etc. Perhaps they are interested in how the physical world is put together, I don’t think they’ve wasted their lives, they’ve certainly become masters in their niche and I’m sure there’s a market for it.
I really don’t like this kind of “art”… Sure could be hard to finish, you must work a lot. But for what?
For something that is Cold and Unexpressive, almost all the pictures here make me feel nothing… thought they are still someones who show something. But still, is not the kind of painting i’d had in my living room or similar.
Good Technique, but no expression.
how dull the world would be with only one song playing…all art is reproduction of one sort or the next. we recast the old songs in new ways and they become fresh. art must illicit some emotional response whether it is love or hate…it is then that it has done what it intended. bravo to the artists!
Personally..I’m in awe that a human can do this. Not my direction in art but hats off to the many hours of observation and dedication in this type of art. Could I do that..Probably to an extent. U actually spend many years study/doing realistic type renderings. My own patience doesn’t want to..I wanna grab more of an essense. O.K it’s realistic ..but It’s not the same as a photo..a person took painstacking study over these to create such amazing work. We should be gripping on those who pretend to do abstract work..which again done well I love.
To anyone who is unsure what Alexander is really on about: I suggest you pick up a little book called “Fashionable Nonsense” by Alan Sokal. All will be explained. There are people who make a living on this stuff, and apparently Alexander is one of them.
PS–If you’re too lazy to read a book, at least Wikipedia the “Sokal Hoax.” You can thank me later.
THIS is Alexander Sutulov:
http://www.artspan.com/images/other_member_pics/asutulov/01.Artist_Portrait.jpg
from his website:
http://www.visualartprojects.com/
Alex – Well played, sir. Trolling truly is a art form.
um… why is Alexander attacked? If you read the first comments, he is clearly not against anything.
I would be bored if these were photographs, the fact its paint is amazing, i see glass in a whole different perspective. the colour clear is the most illuminating colour ever
For those who left thoughtful, insightful comments, I thank you. I now have a better understanding of hyper-realism and can better appreciate it. I still don’t like it, very much, but, I also do not hate it.
For those who would attack others and use foul language, shame on you, you childish, immature whining little brats. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.
To Douglas: That has got to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. Kudos to you!
This kind of art is to photography what lucid dreaming is to the world of the senses.
How has “hyper realism” evolved. Is it because there are more tools and other forms of enhancements to produce this perfection? How long did the artist take in creating these pieces. They seem almost too perfect to come from such imperfect beings. Art is humanity, to be human is to err, although it is in it’s own right, beautiful to have flaws, but to see the reflection of one’s own spirit or soul. This is what I find missing in these works of art. I paint in watercolor and endeavour to use my own abilities in the purist form of the medium. There are many forms of art, some use words, like Alexander Sutulov, the depth of your thoughts on this subject are passionate and insightful.
These guys are some of my inspiration. I am a hyperrealist as well (although not yet emerged)…. take a peek at my website if you’re a fan of hyperrealism!
http://www.natebaldwinhyperrealism.com
the comments are just as enjoyable as the paintings Thanks all
)
Amazing paintings and artists. And I agree with Alessandra above.
I think the people who critique art using absurdly complex statements should be ashamed of themselves and their absolute ignorance to the bigger picture which they miss because they’re too busy meticulously picking the tiny pieces apart. Hyper-realism is every bit as much as an artistic form as Dali, Picasso, etc. Who are YOU to say what is creative and what is not? Picasso threw lines together helter-skelter and people marvelled at the bullshit he created while he probably laughed himself to the bank with the money people like Alexander and other snobby know-it-all art critics out there. Art is defined by the people who see it and make their own personal opinions about it, not some silly art students that have had the art appreciation text book crammed up their ass for far too long.
As a realist in woodblock and lino relief printing, I can appreciate the effort and skill it requires to attempt “realism”. Usually find that those who can not appreciate realism is due to the fact that their skills are, shall we say, limited.
Ha!
How could you not include Bert Monroy, he’s the master!
Philosophical questions about perception have often part of art at least from the renaissance onward, I think. [I hope someone is not going to blast me for being intellectual here... if you don't care for my vocabulary, then stop reading right here. This is the only vocabulary I have.]
Anyway, a photographer friend of mine recently asked me what I was painting. So, I set out my ultra-large dry, Hubbard squashes some of which have cracked open and look like they hold a miniature cosmos inside. Or they look as if aliens landed on my lawn and laid their eggs before disappearing. I placed these brightly painted “garden sculptures” out by the garage door where my Guardian Frog sculpture sits to greet people.
I took a couple of photos and sent them off to the friend who wrote back asking whether I’d sent of photo of a realistic painting and if so it is very good. I thought I sent the real things set up like a still life in a clear photo.
From my perspective it was a photo of my garage entry with frog and my recent “paintings.” She saw the entire still life or photos as a painting. So, what is real … what is ultra-real? Is hyper-real more real than just ordinary walk out of your house real?
I think some of the ultra-real paintings on this page do a lot to challenge the eye and perspective which historically art has always done.
Are they creative?
A photo requires creative skills. The painting from the photo does also. And so should it follow that the painting of the photo requires creative skills. Is this art?
Are my painted dried squashes art? Perhaps it depends on how much I sell them for? Or if I cast them in bronze or another lasting material, would that make them “art”? If they were in a gallery rather than my front yard?
Surely some people will enjoy these realistic paintings from photos of real life as art, cherish them, and pay accordingly. This is art.
P.S.
I think Alexander may have said it better than me when he refers to what we are looking at as “second generation images.” I like that term.
(“… as far we can understand the use of second generation images…”)
Although what we are actually talking about here begins with a still life we should call the first generation; then comes the photo of the still life (2nd generation); then comes the painting from the photo (3rd generation); then someone takes a photo of the painting (4th generation); then it is posted on a website (5th generation). We are discussing 5th generation images as art.
I hope my math is right.
For those of you who are bickering among yourselves: stop being ridiculous and have some manners. Take it elsewhere.
I find that this is art as well as craft. yes you could take picture, and to most people that’s all they will see and that’s find, art is art when you believe it’s art and no one else opinion really matters. I think it’s the achievement and the learning of the craft that should at least be respected…..
lol FxFairy, I love that analogy of the images
it cannot be more true. The amazing thing about hyperrealism & photorealism is that the work of art cannot truly be appreciated for all of it’s beauty until it is seen in person. By removing as many “generations” (photo of the painting, and a smaller low-res image of that photo on the internet) we are then able to see so many more subtleties that are otherwise impossible to capture beyond the painting itself.
That’s one difficulty that hyperrealists have to face; our work is intended to transcend what is visually captured in a photograph, so we implement many techniques of traditional realism and color theory that have been tried and true to create illusions of form that appear to be more “real”. A photograph cannot capture the full gamut of color and value that we see with the human eye (it’s always altered, even just slightly- and most subtleties are averaged out) so we use our knowledge to try to take our paintings’ illusion of reality beyond what the illusion of our initial photograph(s) is able to create. However, most people are unable to see the complexities and suggestive features within a photograph as well as the extremely subtle clues that it leaves for an artist to expand upon in order to create the paintings that they have. One of the most beautiful elements of a hyperrealistic painting is in the artist’s interpretation of the subtleties and how they use those details to heighten an image’s impact. That is why it’s so hard to truly appreciate these beautiful works of art through a photograph of the painting, let alone low-res images. Keep in mind, many hyperrealists & photorealists do work that is very large-scale, so there is a whole lot more in the painting than is possible to see in these pictures.
In regards to the comments asking why these artists “waste their time” and not “go out and create something original”, I do have an answer. The point of hyperrealism is using artistic talent and creativity to transcend our perception of realism, using the photograph as a jumping-off point. They are not mere copies of a photo…. to even have that assumption is a bit ignorant (not meaning that offensively). Even if it was done with the “mere” intention to copy, it would not and could not be considered “merely” a copy. The word “merely” implies extreme simplicity and lack of creative will, but the process of creating a painting from the use of a photographic reference takes a great deal of creativity, and even in the process of matching color, an artist cannot help but use their creative will and alter those colors (and re-draw, re-arrange, etc.). The only way that a person can tell that it’s not a “copy” is if the painting is being shown directly next to the reference photograph, and I guarantee that although on their own they look identical, when seen together you will notice they are far from the same.
Therefore, the photo is a creative medium to mold and enhance… it’s kindof like the beat for a rapper to rap to. We are creating work that is completely original, just as any realistic painting from-life is original. Just because you are painting what you see in front of you, it’s not simply “copying”, nor is it unoriginal. If that’s the argument, then all realistic paintings and sculptures fall into the classification of pointless copies. I don’t feel that they are at all.
Why do we do it? To some it’s the conflict of man vs. technology. Technology has transcended what humans were previously capable of painting (as far as accuracy and amount of detail). Photographs were once considered the death of painting because of this. Photorealists and Hyperrealists have taken it one step further, classifying a photograph as NOT beyond what an artist can do, but rather lowering it to the level of mere reference. The artist then produces an original work of art that goes beyond the illusion of realism that the photograph has created, thus allowing man to win the battle over technology. As for myself, I am romanced by the fact that in modern society photographs are seen as true images of reality. Think about these two common phrases that you hear: “that painting is so good it looks like a photo”, and the near-contradictory “that sunset is so beautiful it looks like a painting”…. Reality can be interpreted by people as holding qualities of a painting, but a painting is seen to hold qualities of a photograph, so I take my work and try to meld the two together– creating a painting that is both as “good as a photo” and as “beautiful as” real life. That, to me, is the truest form of realism in a 2-dimentional medium.
Hyperrealists are the 21st century’s transcendental realists. We do it to go beyond what’s been done before. We do it for love of the illusion and for love of the craft. It’s unfortunate that people view this genre as “copies”, because that viewpoint has hindered these artists from being recognized for the truly phenomenal artists they are. But there are still many people who do appreciate the Hyperrealists and their extremely difficult and beautiful craft, and for those people I say thank you.
Alexander, you are not an art critic. Who publishes your meretricious babble? Name the publication.
I like what Meatball said better than -anything else- said in this thread.
My nuts are itchy.
@Alexander Sutulov — Nicely done, sir or ma’am. Successful troll is successful, etc.
Nate:
Thanks for that explanation. I learned a lot. Esp. the observation about how people compare the value of a photo to the “other reality” like viewing an actual/real sunset live and in person!
After I have seen some Chinese landscape paintings in an art book I was traveling in the Himalayan foothills in Kashmir. .. fishing. All around me I realised that I was standing in one of these landscapes and that the painters had been faithfully rendering their reality… as good as a photo in an art book!
Good job Alex. We need more people like you! I understand you were not trying to act superior or degrade anything. You clearly now what your talking about. Sir I salute your intellect and proper usage of the written word.
“Proper usage of the written word?”
Alexander has made some insightful comments, but much of what he has said is postmodern puffery. The only reason you would charge him with proper usage of the written word is that you don’t understand what he has said and you don’t want to confess your ignorance. I understand that English is probably not Alexander’s first language, but I’m not talking about a few grammatical mistake here. I am talking about stringing together buzzwords in ways that sound logical but are actually close to meaningless. If you disagree with me, then please parse the following sentence, from Alexander’s original post:
“A conjunction of adjectives which dwell in the realm of what can be considered the explicit of something predictable or the implicit usually closer to a world of unpredictability.”
I will do my best to do it for you: we have the explicit, which is predictable, and the implicit, which is unpredictable. Now, explicit means “clearly stated” or “expressed without ambiguity.” In what sense is this predictable? Perhaps you want to argue that if something is completely and clearly explained, then it is predictable. But in truth there is no logical relationship between the two. I can explicitly describe the action of a coin flip, but that doesn’t make it any more predictable. Similarly, I can be very vague about the nature of the clock I am using, but that clock’s actions are still very predictable.
And the implicit, which we are told is “usually closer to a world of unpredictability.” First of all, how is saying “closer to a world of” any different than simply saying “which is.” It is not, so we can disregard that phrase, unless you believe that there actually is a “world of unpredictability” that some things (adjectives in this case) are closer to. Again, there is no logical relationship between something being implicit and something being predictable. In fact, “implicit” means “implied in, though not actually stated.” If one thing is implied in another, we are saying that one logically follows from the other, and this is practically the opposite of unpredictability. For example, if I tell you, “I was so busy at work yesterday that I came home starving this evening.” what am I implying? I am implying that I didn’t have time to eat during work. The fact is implicit in my statement, and you would be correct in “predicting” that I did not eat.
What we have here is two concepts explicit/implicit and predictable/unpredictable that seem like that have a logical relationship but in fact don’t. Now I am not saying that you couldn’t craft examples in which explicit things were also predictable, and implicit predictable, because obviously you could. What I am saying is that to assert that there is a “realm” of the explicit which is predictable, etc. is not to assert anything at all. It is a vague statement with no real meaning. And let’s not even worry that in this realm the explicit can only be “considered” predictable. After all we already know–from using our dictionaries (don’t be afraid of them)–that explicit things are clearly stated, and we don’t have to consider them to be one thing or another.
And what is it that dwells in this realm? A “conjunction of adjectives.” In context, this can only refer to “applied” versus “fine” art. So it is different types of art, which we are calling adjectives for some reason, that dwell in this realm. And remember, this is a realm in which explicit things are predictable or implicit things are unpredictable. (Never mind that the “or” should clearly be an “and,” we’ll use a disjunct to add to the vagueness of the whole thing.)
So what does the statement mean? What is the consequence of types of art dwelling in this realm? I am going to be charitable here and try to give it the most reasonable interpretation possible. Perhaps what is being said is that if we consider hyper-realist art to be applied art then its meaning is explicit and predictable, whereas if we consider it to be fine art then there is much more implicit in the work, and thus more unpredictability. That all sounds good, until you remember that “applied art” is the application of artistic principles to objects of utility, such as the design of furniture, or architecture. In no sense can these paintings be said to be applied art. Painting a functional object like a pencil or a wine glass is not applied art, it is still life.
I could go on, continuing to break this one sentence down further and further, but I have gone on long enough and I think I have proved my point. If you understand the English language, if you are not intimidated by big words and complex phrasing and are willing to plumb the depths, you can often make sense of difficult intellectual writing. You can also tell the difference between the merely difficult and the deliberately obfuscatory. Using large words doesn’t give us license to pervert or fudge their meanings.
I am not an anti-intellectual. Quite the opposite. But as intellectuals, we should strive for clarity of meaning. You can express complex ideas, you can even leave a lot of what you say implicit, and still be clear. You don’t have to sacrifice shades of meaning, to be clear. On the contrary, the best writers can write clearly and still create very complex, evocative works.
If you understand that sentence better than I do, by all means explain it to me. Or perhaps you would like to try your hand at another one. How about this one:
“Complexity, richness and depth are closer to a notion of transition where variations of form act upon as catalyst of organic value or internal movement.”
I am sorry, but even if Alexander has some insight to share with us (and he probably does, clearly he is intelligent) he needs to cut out the nonsense and strive to express his ideas with clarity, without losing any of the meaning, or sacrificing the possibility of varied interpretations. Half the fun of art and art criticism is that you get to explore different the meanings in a work, but in order to do so you have to express yourself coherently.
Wow that was long!
Sorry, but if you really care about making sense of this fascinating dialogue you will read what I have to say.
Well, well impersonating under false identity appears to be an additional trait to such select group of people. Ample material for what could be considered a dignified anthropological study of sorts. In no doubt, a unique opportunity to revise Darwin’s natural selection theory as to why we are witnessing each day more, new forms of involution.
As far painting goes, it might be a good idea to establish degrees of common language. When I refer to “second generation images” it’s part of printmaker’s jargon with a very specific connotation very long to explain right now. Nevertheless, the whole notion of stage work inherent to the use of second generation images is a common exercise to visual artist regarding objective and nonobjective reality. Our different levels of perception cognitive or non cognitive are precisely a result of certain “visual transitions” to which numerous historical references can be found. For example, well known Monet’s Rouen Cathedral sequence is an eloquent manifestation of natural light transition.
The bombastic introductions of photorealism, hyperrealism and variations which may tune in with phenomena observed as far as optical art or op art; are all basically a byproduct of a strenuous Industrial Revolution which exercised a tremendous emphasis on technology and its capability of reproduction. True to consider hyperrealist painters to stretch beyond mechanical device and even improvise over color separation idiom such is the case for Chuck Close who takes us a step further into the realm of light fragmentation.
All of the above can be a joyous field of knowledge which may require an act of generosity amongst some of the current participants who persist in a puerile debate. Hopefully some of you will gather yourselves a little bit more and at least have good manners at the table!!!
Alexander: I, for one, have not acted puerilely, placed myself in a false light, or demonstrated bad manners. I granted your intellect and conceded that you have made some insightful comments. This most recent post include some such comments. I do not have your depth of understanding of artistic jargon, and I find some of your explanations, such as that of “second generation images,” helpful.
I said only that some of your writing is vague and confusing, often deliberately so, and that in some cases it lacks meaning entirely. This continues to be the case. For example, your attempt to link impersonation or false identity to natural selection is completely misguided.
I am happy to conduct an intellectual debate, but I will not be defamed. If those comments were directed at me then I object to them. If you want to continue a dialogue that is free of false accusations, then please let’s do so.
i like to think that this style is a next step, to where? i can’t really tell (once i know, i’ll try to get there faster and be one of the creators). i haven’t studied art as many here, but whenever i see paintings, i see that the detail has been improving over long periods of time and for me, this is where we are now. i remember saying that andy’s warhol work were paintings and being told they weren’t. for me they were really realistic, but now i don’t know what are they
i really like this technique since the skills look up to the perfection of an instant. i’ve thought that it’s kind of dumb to copy a photo since something else could be created but just the thought that with only your hands and a couple of crayons or pencils or brushes, you can extend reality to such a point is great
alexander, i dont want my screen washed thanks all the same.
wow! they look so much like boring, uninspired, photos I almost thought they really were!!!
hey guys I can stack cards like you’ve never seen! been doing it all my life
*proceeds to put palm on forehead*
Adrian,
I appreciate your thoughtfulness and semantic concern, I was actually referring to comments #33, 45 and 49 which appear under my name but obviously written by somebody else.
In relation to your language barrier, I believe you’re quite right, usually for us visual artist who are on a regular basis thinking visually; we obey to different thought structures. Obviously a departure from a linear Aristotelian logic (Jacques-Louis David) followed by a Hegelian dialectics (Henri Matisse) and culminating with a notion of parallel language (Jasper Johns) who Rudolph Arnheim describes in a exemplary way throughout his book “Visual Thinking”.
As you may know and shown to exercise, anything can be proved to be wrong; otherwise Euclid and Lobachevsky would still be discussing what the shortest distance between two points is. Luminary artist such as Wassily Kandinsky with his body manifest “Point and Line over the Plane” makes perfectly clear in how we construct a reality from what mathematicians refer to as a body axiom or a postulate with no proof. One can understand it as a set of arbitrary values which describe a particular reality. Now, the relationships one can establish between one reality and another is what truly captivates our imagination and creativity.
Making explicit reference to the intellect is somewhat a little too serious for my taste. When you lose your sense of humor, you start stepping on your own tale. Something which reveals to me your shortcomings regarding Darwin’s inner most paradigms which is the origin of self identity as the first act of perpetuating human thought process. The whole marvel of what we are precisely executing through language brings us to our first prerogative “To be or not to be…” Bluntly said, in a matter of speech what we understand as an elliptical relationship.
ahhh this looks so fakee but its beautiful
)
In regard to Alexanders first post and to everybody else, Alexander simply just expressed his own opinion just like everybody else. These paintings are no doubt magnificent, but I guess everybody has their own taste.
If you disagree with an opinion which somebody has expressed, don’t go and criticize them!
Just move on and make your own. Fighting about it won’t make any difference to what you see here, on this page.
Alexander, I apologize for taking offense where none was intended. You comment #83 followed mine very quickly and I assumed it was directed at me. As for those commenters masquerading as you: you have a–how shall I say?–distinct writing style (as I have pointed out) and I would hope people could tell the difference. As you say, obviously written by someone else. No one deserves to be treated in that way.
You are absolutely correct. Different thought structures is an excellent way to put it. I take issue with your writing style because I think it is inappropriate for an academic discipline. Unless, of course, you consider postmodernism to be an academic discipline, but I think it is clear I do not.
Your writing, at times, amounts to stream of consciousness. If you want to forego semantic clarity and simply throw words and ideas together in order to challenge the reader to make sense of them, fine, that is your prerogative. I believe there is an appropriate medium for such pursuits, namely, fiction writing. When you read a book like Joyce’s “Ulysses” you are constantly confronted with semantic irregularity and disjointed ideas. But the writing as a whole has a certain evocative effect on you.
Stream of consciousness has its place. A reference to Darwin might serve to remind the reader of the fact of evolution or natural selection. That reminder might color what comes after in an interesting or useful way. The purpose of stream of consciousness is to stir the mind, and perhaps to have some fun with the language.
I am of the opinion that this literary style has no place in academic writing. You yourself admit that your writing is a “departure from linear Aristotelian logic.” I agree wholeheartedly. But, as these comments show, there are many readers who do not understand what you are doing and yet would praise you out of ignorance. Maybe that’s half the fun. It certainly has provided us with some entertainment here.
I suspect you and I could go on like this forever. We would probably enjoy debating in person. But we will never have a meeting of the minds. You are a practicer of an art I do not appreciate: postmodernism. Call it a departure, call it trolling, it is what it is. My beef with postmodernism goes much deeper than your writing, and I shouldn’t direct all of my disgust towards you.
This has been fun. You were right there. Thank you and keep proudly doing what you do.
Adrian,
Your levels of reconciliation are admirable which brings to light the whole idea of dialogue with none confrontational brutality. Beyond any particular point of view, I rescue tremendously your sense of civility. The only way we may come to grips with anything of substance.
Postmodernism is a reaction to Modernism and Modernism is a reaction to antiquity. Fairly said you may find the right spots for each argument which I don’t pretend to dispute. The fact is people may view me in different nature which usually speaks more about context than content. Nevertheless, the results are in the eye of the beholder.
So far, at least to my knowledge, nobody has considered my artwork to be Postmodern. If I were to point out any aspect or common denominator amongst identifiable Postmodernist artist such as Joseph Beuys, my immediate perception is a language where the concept prevails over the form. In my world when this occurs, visual arts fly out the window! Not that I pretend to undermine Joseph Beuys and his significant contribution to the world of art, I am only pointing out a consequence.
Furthermore, great part of the reason why art and most important, aesthetics are species in danger of extinction, relates ontologically to the above. Today we have a world of design in the form of applied arts which has virtually taken over completely the role of fine arts. Contemporary architecture to a large extend is a recompilation of design formulas where human existence is a mere appendix in its artistic dimension. Today’s public art are a derivative of sustainability policies bounded to tax right offs.
All of our existence through the power of retail industry and marketing has become a concept of design. A sense of uniformity has expanded throughout every channel of information where people or consumers, better said, wear the same clothe, listen to the same music, and perpetuate the same tribal rites. All in the sake of a new concept! What concept???
In this respect, I can understand your objections, but by all means don’t confuse me with something usually meant to be confusable which by the way; it’s the etymology of being sophisticated, the art of disguise!
Alexander, you are quite possibly one of the biggest fucking morons i have ever come across. your the asshole in the coffee shop who like to tell people how mart he is. You’re also the pretentious douchebag who things talking in nerd speak makes it sound like you know what the fuck you are talking about. Do yourself a favor. Go outside, take a drive, and stay the fuck out of other people business all while keeping your fucking mouth shut.
Now go to bed and cry yourself to sleep you fucking POS hippy.
Alexander,
It’s society itself that has made you who you are and the way you think today. You have one (1) word to solve the problem – World Peace.
What is it? Remember…you live in a world with no boundaries.
You guys do know you’re arguing over the internet, right?
this is not particularly hard, it’s just a lot of work.
1. take a picture of something, in the highest possible resolution
2. project it against a plane white wall or screen
3. start carefully and painstakingly repainting every detail
not hard, just work.
I stopped reading most of these comments after I saw some people were actually buying into a lot of hot air. I appreciated the art on here… if art is the correct term, though it was always my impression that art is what you make of it. I mean I live in the city of Andy Warhol… and Campbell Soup boxes as well as Brillo boxes seem to be considered art by some.
Just keep in mind the words of many people on here are just that…. words…. hot air… and not worth the pixels they take up on your screen.
You can see someone taking a photo of the vending machine in the reflection ?
Woooooow. SHUT THE FUCK UP. you guys really must have no life. especially Alexander and adrian. who cares, you suck. And yes he did just express his opinion but god… no one cares you can make a page long critique, if you were so good you’d be doing it as a career. you two are pathetic.
To the haters:
What’s the problem with just having arguments/discussions for fun? No one insisted that you participate. I write for fun. It’s not my career; I have a career.
All I’m doing here is expressing my ideas and opinions, and absorbing those of others. Maybe you’d rather I spent my free time in front of a television? Or belittling people I’ve never met on the internet?
If you don’t like it go find something to do that you enjoy. Better yourself.
these are amazing. fuck you all.
I am amazed by the quality, detail, and realism of these works. I can’t imagine the time and creativity to create such realistic works of art. The techniques to create such realism must be numerous.
I’m not sure why there is so much negativity here in the comments. If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything. Good advice from our mothers and grandmothers.
I wouldn’t have these in my house, not my thing. But I appreciate the talent, skill, the concept, and compositions. Glad I got to see them. Incredible work.
I have seen so much art that I wouldn’t consider or art, but others do. That’s great.
I celebrate these artists for their passion. Creating works like this involves many hours. Thanks to all of the artists for sharing their works here.
Zac: Are you really a piece of shit or just pretend to be one while posting rude and hateful comments. I’m sure your painting during your time spent in the group home is MUCH better, right? What a douche!
Interesting to point out that after gathering a series of comments from what appears to be a distinguished group of people, certain common traits can be recognized in the form of a pattern. Better said, I would speculate a set of rules by which you are legitimized in order to participate in the current public forum. If you allow me, I would add to the fact that the following rules which I am about to intuitively render, represent a new form of police state where a careful selection of commissaries have been appointed by their prominent and obstinate virtues:
Rule #1: All participants should at least make use every four to five words appropriate foul language; otherwise the audience may fall under the suspicion of alien presence.
Rule #2: You are required to be one hundred percent predictable; nobody really wants to think you have any hidden or subversive intentions. All comments are to be expressed in a strait forward fashion, ideally exempt of punctuation.
Rule #3: Regarding rule #2 but not restrictive too, any insinuation of thought process or expressed cognitive capabilities are to be immediately subordinated to instinctive reactions in order to make clear all territorial demarcations.
Rule #4: Only legitimized members can conduct undercover operations, meaning when illegitimate participation are identified, qualified members may proceed under false identity in order to impersonate, modify and rectify contaminated information.
Rule #5: All members are required to keep guard at all times any irregular or suspicious activity by reprimanding with all available resources third party dispute. All actions should be followed by distinctive guttural monosyllable.
For all interested applicants, additional instructions will follow shortly.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER:
If you can stick to our five golden rules and believe to have a genuine vocation for invariable obedience, we may consider your application.
May the force be with you!
NNCS
(Neo Neanderthal Curatorial Society)
Too bad. I had been hoping that these comments would contain a discussion of the techniques involved in these paintings.
Oh well, another opportunity to learn is lost. Sigh.
Naaaaaaaaa esa no te la crees ni vos, che. Mirá si esas FOTOS van a ser “pinturas” ¡por dios! Dame una Cybershot y yo mimso te saco esas imágenes.
Alexander Sutulov: We live in visceral times.
Alexander Sutulov,
This is truly entertaining. I only paid attention to your comments regarding other comments in the feed, and it surprises me just how many people have chosen to bash you. I find that the lack of intelligence portrayed in the rude comments contributes to the hilarity of this post. I especially appreciate your most recent post regarding the NNCS. Nice touch, really.
You have an eloquent way with words, I can only dream of writing so well.
It’s artwork, people, you all need to chill out.
I personally love these pieces, they are phenomenal!
I have read the postings after first enjoying the art. As a lover of all kinds of art I really do appreciate the talent and the passion that has been put into this work.
I am only sorry that true artists have to tolerate criticism from would-be artists who can not turn their own frustrations into a more creative outlet. I am also amazed that Alexander Sutulov, for all his verbosity, is unable to discern between the usage of “your” and “you’re”. (See the last sentence of his pointless tirade on 7-13-10 at 2:39 am.)
But I” ll be gentler to him that he was to this artist. Perhaps we can attribute his bitterness to the lateness of the hour that he posted his opinion.
what is going on here.
OMG! Ö
Alexander Sutulov said at 3:45 am on July 21st, 2010: When you typed “When you lose your sense of humor, you start stepping on your own tale” did you mean to type ‘tail’.
ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! Mind boggling! Awesome work!
It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.
Pablo Picasso
aren’t you clever…looks like a Martha Stewart magazine, did someone say “art?”
Wall of texts crit for 150000 dmg.
I do not know wut was worse the paintings or the pontifications from Alex.
I want my 5 minutes of life back you life sucking fuckwads.
these are owesome!
i though it was just a photo b4,
and when i realize that all of these are a painting,
i’m so damn speechless!
these are definitely owesome!!
nooooossa senhora.
its very nice. I don’t believe in some pieces in this colect.
it’s very impressive.
While one has to admire these artist’s skill… uh… they obviously took photographs of their subjects… why not just post those? Not sure I see the point… and I am an art teacher. Most of these just seem cold and dead.
Sheldom: I think you are wrong if you only see the result and don´t take in mind the training, dedication, hard work, skill and talent behind it. For example, you could also say that it´s a nonsense to work hard for years to be able to run 100 mtrs in less than 10 seconds. You could make it faster riding a car
.
You have to work very hard to achieve those results… it´s not easy to have the be able to disintegrate reality into colors and strokes, and reintegrate them into a picture. And there is a point where training can´t get those results… it´s a gift. I know it because i tried it in the past, and failed. I don´t have the gift, but these guys do.
In my opinion art is not only to create the concept… talking about music, the composer is an artist of course but the master piano player is also a master.
Maybe a diferent one, but also an unvaluable one.
And in this case, i´m sure these guys also created the concept by setting up the original photo.
AMAZING
Anybody can take a photograph. Not everybody can do this. It takes an unbelievable amount of skill and artistic talent which I think a lot of you haven’t taken into consideration. Give credit where credit is due. I would like to see some of you paint as well as this.
Alexander Sutulov CASTS INTELLIGENCE, ITS SUPER EFFECTIVE!
Si dos personas usan un mismo modelo para pintar un cuadro, nunca podrá ser igual si los comparamos entre si, pues cada uno de nosotros tenemos una forma distinta de ver las cosas.
Estoy de acuerdo con CHRIS al decir que le gusta el trabajo de Eric Christensen sobre los efectos de refracción de vidrio con la exageración de ella..
En cuanto a los comentarios hechos sobre los trabajos que hemos podido ver, yo no puedo valorar la opinión de ninguno de ellos, pues naci sin el don de creatividad, sin embargo no comprendo como personas con una formación y una educacion fuera de lo corriente relacionadas en este maravilloso mundo de la pintura y de la fotografia puedan usar un lenguaje tan soez al escribir sus comentarios. Dicho esto pido perdon si con mis palabras he podido ofender a alguno de ustedes.
wow. completely amazing i cant imagine the time he put into these.
Going to troll.
I would to adhese a very important factor out of the whole “Alex Debate” that is extremely strong throughout the bones of most homosapiens on this planet; that is the power of opinion.
Through all of what Alex had to say, people would soon critisise the critisism as if it was a personal attack upon themselves. Not once did Alex require a reference to one of you, but only an opinionated observation that you as fellow close-traited genetic bodies should also share. Regardless of what one might say, it is JUST an opinion and that is all.
War is created because of conflicting opinion, one person believes in Christianity, whereas the other will adhere to being a Muslim. These are clashing traits, but also still just opinions. It only requires a hightened sense of power and a few dastardly men, similar to the flamers in this post to create violence from a make-believe situation.
Take advice, leave advice, whatever it is, it is always JUST AN OPINION. The human race will fall due to such inaccurate assumptions upon other’s beliefs, and vice versa.
Alex, respect.
Those sure are some boring photos.
Interesting to point out that after gathering a series of comments from what appears to be a distinguished group of people, certain common traits can be recognized in the form of a pattern. Better said, I would speculate a set of rules by which you are legitimized in order to participate in the current public forum. If you allow me, I would add to the fact that the following rules which I am about to intuitively render, represent a new form of police state where a careful selection of commissaries have been appointed by their prominent and obstinate virtues:
Trolololol lololol lololol~ lololololollllll.
Trolololol LOLOLOL lololol, lololololllllll lol lol lolllllllllllll
GOD DAMMIT
WILL U RESPECT EACH OTHER
u know wat is said……..appologies for the language used:
opinions are like asswholes…………..everyone has one! deal with it
ufffffff….
The art was amazing, I cant believe someone could make something so beautiful!
Son grandes pintores, obras maravillosas, geniales! El hiper – realismo es una tendencia pictórica que merece la pena difundir. Gracias por esta web.
well, borink in the extreme especially with borink subjects.
Alex, you are my hero. I only wish to troll as you troll.
amazing i LOVE them
…. paintings that resemble real photographs…. awesome talented artists for sure !!
I think that these people are extremely talented, extremely-and I admire their talents. BUT I don’t exactly undersatnd the point? Some look like really crappy photographs and a lot lack interest. Yes, it is extremely impressive that anyone is capable of creating such realism… I guess, I just don’t understand the point of some of these, is it just to show the skill? There is no feeling and little interest in a lot of them. I think these people’s skills seem to be wasted a bit because it seems as though they aren’t putting anything more than technical skill into their artwork. Maybe I just do not understand the point of hyper-realism painting.
This thread was a blast! Alexander you are a ROCKSTAR! Adrian is also very cool. Nate you are a really gifted artist and should be considered in this company of artists. No need to sell yourself short, I liked your pieces. I have new appreciation for hyperrealism… It is not just a photograph, and yes it is hard work something most people shy away from. For the haters, you are the douche bags. I am not smart but I like people who are because I learn from them more than you idiots who like to sit in the back of the class and sniff paint thinner.
Haters? I am asking an honest question. I understand these people are talented but I don’t understand the point. Do you know anything about art? I am wondering what the point of it is? It seems like there is nothing emotional nothing interesting about it. Yes, these people have amazing talent but what is the point of completely mimicking a photograph? I don’t get it… explain… there has to be something about it, what is it.
This is the artistic equivalent of doing a 100,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. It takes a long time and in the end you have a stock photograph.
This is phenomenal….
“Substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability”
OMFG. The one thing I detest is when people say things are not “art”.
Art is everywhere. This is how the artist chooses to express themselves. Telling them to take a photo to save time is ridiculous. Obviously, they see beauty in the mundane, taking the time and patience to notice every exact detail. People really need to shut the hell up, please. -__-
I like use viagra, but this no good in my life, so viagra no good.
Kasodocus as your comment made me laugh I thought I’d let you peddle your Viagra here. I am sure it’s top quality stuff…
@Richard McLenson: YES.
In my opinion, if somebody is going to spend countless hours of work on a painting that looks just like a photograph, why not paint something impossible… something amazing… I’m not bad at drawing, but if I could paint that well I wouldn’t waste my time painting food and drinks. I’d want to do something memorable, like dragons so realistic they look like they’re going to fly right off the page, horns, sharp teeth, forked tongues, amber eyes so intense they look like they will burn right through the page, large bat wings, sharpened talons… all on a background of a cloudy gray sky, with clouds so heavy they look about to burst from the rain, over a vast forest with trees to tall they look as if they were trying to reach through the clouds for the sun,thick mist snaking through them, rolling down of of the majestic, snow-capped mountains making the forest floor invisible… Sorry… I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll leave it there.
X_X
As an artist who used to go for the whole photo realism thing… it really does defeat the purpose of art by following a photograph so closely… it’s good for practice to ensure that an artist’s vision remains true to itself… instead of being altered by shoddy skills… but I truly believe that it only belongs as practice and not as actual art.
These pieces only show that the artists can paint, not that they can feel.
People are giving Alexander crap because he’s using his full name, while everyone else isn’t which makes him stick out as pretentious and his writing style is the same… people mostly use small words because then they don’t have to worry about people not knowing certain words.
@Alexander: Fact is there are over a million words in the English language and more are being added daily. It only makes sense to write in words that you actually hear in normal everyday conversation versus ones that you read.
Good day and Good luck,
-Riles
Typically I don’t go for still life paintings of any nature. It’s a pretty painting, but nothing more. I always want art to move me whether in anger or sympathy, sadness or humor.
Many people are saying that there’s no emotion in these paintings, but to be honest, the sheer skill and talent of these artists almost put me in tears. I feel that they display an ideology of how we see things, not just a photo replicate. They take the detail of a plastic bag, the reflection of a glass and make it so much more than you would ever even consider in real life. You look at it and think “Jesus that is amazing” rather than “Oh, it’s just a vending machine.” These are things that we simply cannot see with our naked eye and reveal it to us. They expose us to more of the world that we live in than we could ever naturally be in touch with. That’s why these paintings have feeling and life. That’s why they aren’t as cold as they appear to be..
It’s 12:00. I can’t fall asleep. I stumble upon this lovely webpage.
My thoughts:
-The subjects of these painting are not impressive, although the detail is phenomenal.
-This is where i believe the “art” lies, I’m sure the artist realizes he/she could just as easily take a photo. It’s the effort that makes these paintings lovely.
-As for the Alexander Sutulov character; I appreciate your elequence in the English language. Though i question your character in how fervently you defend yourself to screennames on your monitor. Have you truly the intelligence your comments suggest i hope you are making proper use of it, instead of waving it around on the internet. Teach children possibly.
-As for those whose comments were empty of original or stimulating thought. You might be interested in the teachings of Alexander Sutulov.
-Those who participated in adamant discussions, arguments, or like wise. Thank you. It’s nice to be reminded there are still those that possess both sides of the brain.
-It is really terribly late now. And after reading every post I am quite exhausted.
-Incase of a smart remark about my comment. I could care less. I see words upon a screen and nothing more.
-Alexander if you still return to this page I mean no insult. Only play.
-I think I can sleep now.
-Goodnight strangers
I guess it posses the same question in a mirror, why not throw away our camera’s if you can just paint it? Art can be found in just about anything…we spend our lives saying, “to be accepting of all things,” as long as it’s only the things we agree with or love. while one man finds he can express his deepest emotions through the painting of a coke can that looks almost too real, another does it simply because he can. to one it is art to the other it is not. as long as we keep on marching along beating our drums in the faces of other people claiming our way as correct and our views as final we’ll always have worthless threads like this…with one man thinking he is an intellectually superior genius forged through a lifetime of struggles and able to expressed himself only through a thesaurus.
This could be art? who am i to critique it in that fashion….a true critic points out flaws, things that could be done better, and the techniques that make it successful as a painting….not solely if it is or should be considered art.
Seems like a long and painful process for a digital photo looking result.
I really enjoy the comments from those exclaiming that photo-realistic paintings are easy they’re “just not patient enough” to complete one. Because obviously patience is all it takes, not artistic talent or an ability to paint well or understand proportions or anything. Also, taking a picture is not even close to the same thing. Abstract artists slap random lines and colors on a canvas and people go crazy over it. Not everyone can or want to think in an abstract manner. I myself am a perfectionist and would love to be able to paint in a photo-realistic manner. Creating art is not just about the end product but also the process and how you feel during or once you’ve finished a piece and being able to create something that could be mistaken as a photo would certainly make me feel pretty awesome. Nothing is a waste of time if you enjoyed doing it.
@Lindsay I agree 100%. Obviously it’s all about context. A nude may look like pornography but in context it can be considered art, to some an abstract painting worth millions may look like something a four year old could do.
Adrian, I commend you for the singular moment of rationality here and for having apparently given up such a hopeless task.
Alexander is what we call a troll. Don’t feed him unless you want some automated entertainment
Man, these photos are delicious. So visually astounding. And kudos to Elle way up top, who echoed my thoughts completely: the very fact that these are focused on such mundane, everyday scenes makes the art richer; it emphasizes (without preachiness) the incredibly stunning detail of the every day, and even more so, of the oft-bashed, florescent/junk food/cluttered daily America. It’s so interesting, and much appreciated. Thanks for the post!