Thursday, 9 February 2012
A conclusion....of sorts.
I've found this research project really helpful. It has opened my eyes to the world of photorealism and i've learnt a lot about the processes it involves. I've found out that the main material used to create a realistic painting seem to be oil paints as they blend well and create smooth images without many lines. One of the popular techniques used seems to be the air brush. This is definitely a technique that takes a while to perfect.
I really enjoyed doing my own photorealist painting and although it wasn't perfect I was very pleased with the final outcome of my first attempt. It has definitely made me want to keep trying to perfect my skills in becoming a photorealist painter, although I do need to learn to be patient and just keep trying and realise that making mistakes is part of the learning process!
I think I probably could have researched into a few more books and found out a bit more about the techniques and processes but I think i will definitely continue this project and keep researching as i have found it very interesting and useful information.
I think the next personal project I get in scenic I am going to attempt to do a face, maybe in the style of Alyssa Monks as I think her work is beautiful and the way she captures the water and condensation in her shower paintings fascinates me. I feel it would be a very challenging project to take on.....not sure if i'm ready for it but...got to start somewhere!
I think I might invest in some oil paintings and attempt a few easier smaller paintings at home like the Pedro Campos coke can.
I stumbled upon hyper-realism during my research project and a bit of trompe l'oeil. I'm going to research into them a bit as I find both of them really interesting areas. Especially trompe l'oeil street art. I think there is a very close connection between photorealism and trompe l'oeil as they both go hand in hand at fooling the viewer that the painting/drawing is real. Im definitely going to look into this more.
I was trying to find some videos of photorealism painting in the making but I found this video on you tube of a guy doing a photorealism picture on his computer. Its incredible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu27-8x6yxw
And heres a little trompe l'oeil chalk art just for fun.
http://www.tickld.com/content.php?contentID=1393
Monday, 6 February 2012
Bring on spring.
I've been busy making jackets in costume. 3 to be exact! As well as making a dress for myself. Stupidly I fell in love with the pattern on a chiffon material and bought it and now i'm dealing with the consequences of my actions. Chiffon is not an easy material to work with. I'm getting there with a little help from the costume girls. I've got the hard part done, the darts in the front. Now I've got to do some french seams then attach it to the under-dress and hopefully it will be a beautiful masterpiece so I can move onto my next dress! I've asked for a sewing machine for my birthday so then I can start churning out the clothes!
It will be a shame to leave costume, i'm not fussed about doing an elective, i'd be quite happy just doing a major and minor but hey, those are the rules.
After Jamie mentioned the renaissance period and my photorealist techniques I've had a little look into it and found this interesting website which explains David Hockneys' ideas and why they should not be taken seriously.
http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
Hockneys' theory was that back in the renaissance times they didn't know how to paint and that they had to use camera obscuras and curved mirrors, like a projector, and that they would then trace the image.
Hockney analysed the work of the 'old masters' and argued that level of accuracy that they produced is impossible to create by 'eyeballing it' Since then Hockney and physicist Charles Falco (who was also an expert in optics) have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids.
Hockney's book prompted intense debate among artists and art historians. In particular it has spurred increased interest in the actual methods and techniques of artists among scientists and historians of art and science. The historians have in general reacted unfavorably and think that Hockney and Falco's theory is an accusation that the old masters 'cheated' and intentionally obscured their methods.
Art historians have criticized Hockney's argument on the grounds that the use of optical aids has little value for explaining the overall development of western art, and that historical records and paintings and photographs of art studios, as well as present day realist artists, demonstrate that high levels of realism are possible without optical aids.
It will be a shame to leave costume, i'm not fussed about doing an elective, i'd be quite happy just doing a major and minor but hey, those are the rules.
After Jamie mentioned the renaissance period and my photorealist techniques I've had a little look into it and found this interesting website which explains David Hockneys' ideas and why they should not be taken seriously.
http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm
Hockneys' theory was that back in the renaissance times they didn't know how to paint and that they had to use camera obscuras and curved mirrors, like a projector, and that they would then trace the image.
Hockney analysed the work of the 'old masters' and argued that level of accuracy that they produced is impossible to create by 'eyeballing it' Since then Hockney and physicist Charles Falco (who was also an expert in optics) have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids.
Hockney's book prompted intense debate among artists and art historians. In particular it has spurred increased interest in the actual methods and techniques of artists among scientists and historians of art and science. The historians have in general reacted unfavorably and think that Hockney and Falco's theory is an accusation that the old masters 'cheated' and intentionally obscured their methods.
Art historians have criticized Hockney's argument on the grounds that the use of optical aids has little value for explaining the overall development of western art, and that historical records and paintings and photographs of art studios, as well as present day realist artists, demonstrate that high levels of realism are possible without optical aids.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Bits and bobs.
I found a website of a guy who has interviewed a few photorealism artists including Louis K Meisel, who came up with the term "photorealism". Its a pretty interesting read. Take a look....
http://db-artmag.com/en/54/feature/really-nice-guys-louis-k.-meisel-on-photorealisms-beginnings/
I also came across a website which has a list of 10 painters. One of whom is Yigal Ozeri. I thought it was a photo at first. The blurred background and detail in the creases of the dress and hair is beautiful.
This is a link to the website http://www.unstage.com/2010/05/10-photorealistic-painters/
I find it really interesting how much variety you get in photorealist paintings. A lot seem to focus on faces and figures and there are also quite a few which involve water. I haven't really come across many that are architectural or which focus on animals. Im sure there are some out there just waiting for me to discover. I think i find the ones with people and faces and expressions the most fascinating. I think because an expression can show so much its all about how you capture it. I probably find them the most fascinating because I cant do people or faces. I cant get the perspective right so seeing someone who can paint every last detail and crease and capture exactly what the person is feeling is amazing. I've learnt so much during this research project, not only that there are hundreds of photo realist artists but also its origins, how it began and an insight into the techniques and styles different artists use. I've just got to keep practicing....
http://db-artmag.com/en/54/feature/really-nice-guys-louis-k.-meisel-on-photorealisms-beginnings/
I also came across a website which has a list of 10 painters. One of whom is Yigal Ozeri. I thought it was a photo at first. The blurred background and detail in the creases of the dress and hair is beautiful.
This is a link to the website http://www.unstage.com/2010/05/10-photorealistic-painters/
I find it really interesting how much variety you get in photorealist paintings. A lot seem to focus on faces and figures and there are also quite a few which involve water. I haven't really come across many that are architectural or which focus on animals. Im sure there are some out there just waiting for me to discover. I think i find the ones with people and faces and expressions the most fascinating. I think because an expression can show so much its all about how you capture it. I probably find them the most fascinating because I cant do people or faces. I cant get the perspective right so seeing someone who can paint every last detail and crease and capture exactly what the person is feeling is amazing. I've learnt so much during this research project, not only that there are hundreds of photo realist artists but also its origins, how it began and an insight into the techniques and styles different artists use. I've just got to keep practicing....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)