Not Horsey but WOW! Photo realistic paintings

[chickeninabun]

Check out these paintings! They are incredible!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/cultu...yssa-Monks.html

 

[monkeybum13]

i saw them in the metro
they are billiant

 

[Kenzo]

Now that is serious talant, wow!

 

[somethingorother]

Those are incredible. She creates the water and steam effects from memory?! wow.

 

[Shilasdair]

What is the point?
If you want realism, take a photo.
She says she copies photographs (or rather 'uses them for inspiration') but I want to see the artist's feelings about the subject reflected in the work, not removed from it by adherence to realism.
S

 

[sevoflurane]

all I can say is WOW they are absolutely fantastic!!! I would love to go and see her exhibition

 

[picolenicole]

WOW all I can say

 

[Ginny24]

Thats amazing !!

*wishes I had such talent*

 

[somethingorother]

But shils you have to admire the skill involved, surely?

 

[Shilasdair]

[ QUOTE ]
But shils you have to admire the skill involved, surely?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think copying from a photograph is either artistic or skillful.
S

 

[LauraBR]

Photo-realists get such a tough time in the art world, but I love these paintings! Interestingly, if you look at the close ups on her website they are actually quite painterly, it is the sheer size of them that help create the photo effect- http://alyssamonks.com/popup/popup.asp?s...rk-detail-2.jpg Nice to see the brushstrokes as a lot of the hyper-realist portraiture I have seen in the media recently has used airbrushing to achieve smooth skin tones etc which, for me, doesn't invoke quite the same level of hero worship

I would love to see examples of her work produced from life, I bet they would be spectacular!

 

[sea_view]

My word, they are fantastic - what a gift!

 

[PinkFairy]

Wow! Incredible talent.

 

[Kat]

I've not seen them in the flesh, but I'm inclined to agree with Shilasdair. Being too photo-realistic is a bit pointless and requires very little originality, skilled copying yes, but not originality.

My husband is an artist but has moved away from his more photorealistic work for these reasons. He likes to make sure that he as an artist adds something that cannot be found in a photo.

His work is here: www.mark-langley.com

I should also add that if it isn't her own photograph that she is using as source material then she is most likely in breach of copyright.

 

[Depp_by_Chocolate]

Stunning, I too saw them in Metro, I don't find them at all pointless and I wish I had half that talent.

 

[PapaFrita]

They are really very very beautiful and her technique is stunning. There's more to painting than just putting the paint on canvas though; composition is very important and getting a painting to 'tell a story' is another challenge. I think her work is exceptional even if she is 'copying' a photo

 

[Dottie]

WOW

 

[Kat]

[ QUOTE ]
They are really very very beautiful and her technique is stunning. There's more to painting than just putting the paint on canvas though; composition is very important and getting a painting to 'tell a story' is another challenge. I think her work is exceptional even if she is 'copying' a photo

[/ QUOTE ]

Be interested to know whether she is composing it herself though if she's copying a photo.....

You'd be surprised how many "professional" artists use stock photos, buy the rights to reproduce it, and just copy the photographers composition.

 

[PapaFrita]

I certainly use photos, so no surprise there, but I use my own or have permission to use them

Alyssa says all the photos are her own. Composing a photo is slightly different IMO to composing a painting; some images work as one and not the other (I can't explain why this is)

 

[Kat]

I agree completely PapaFrita, my husband also uses photos, but a) he takes his own wherever possible b) if he uses someone elses he ensures he has permission and c) he doesn't simply copy them.

If she takes the photos herself and is producing pictures that work as paintings without falling into some of the traps that befall a lot of artists who use photos such as errors of perspective or problems with depth of field then fair play to her.

I note that she comes from the USA where there is far more respect for photo-realistic work. Over here is is almost a dirty word and lots of artists who produce equally good work shy away from using the term.

 

[Kat]

Check out this site for an English artist producing portraits of people that are just as striking IMHO.

http://www.emmatooth.co.uk/paintings/index.html

 

[PapaFrita]

Ah, good point about the trickery of lenses that cause distortion

I've noticed that in some pics she has reproduced the blurring of depth of field... I remember another American artist I saw at the Tate Modern... can't remember his name, who did the same thing.
Your husband's work is excellent, BTW

 

[amandaco2]

[ QUOTE ]
They are really very very beautiful and her technique is stunning. There's more to painting than just putting the paint on canvas though; composition is very important and getting a painting to 'tell a story' is another challenge. I think her work is exceptional even if she is 'copying' a photo

[/ QUOTE ]
ditto!

 

[PapaFrita]

Those are very good too, but quite 'paintingy' if you see what I mean, even in their composition.

 

[brighteyes]

Now THAT is proper talent!

 

[Kat]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, good point about the trickery of lenses that cause distortion

I've noticed that in some pics she has reproduced the blurring of depth of field... I remember another American artist I saw at the Tate Modern... can't remember his name, who did the same thing.
Your husband's work is excellent, BTW

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! I think so too, but I'm very biased!