Photo-realism is here now

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 27 Mar 2009, 12:51

Check out these paintings.

http://www.robertobernardi.com/

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Mar 2009, 13:16

Is Photo-realism the same as Photorealism?

Cool pictures.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 27 Mar 2009, 13:27

There is no-denying the guy has amazing talent. I did notice some imperfections that took away the photograph illusion. some look more like renderings than photographs. But maybe thats just my art training coming in here.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 27 Mar 2009, 14:02

bradavon wrote:Is Photo-realism the same as Photorealism?

Sweet baby jesus, I think this might be the best Bradism yet!

Amazing paintings, I don't think I'm totally sold by the metallic surfaces though, some are a little too reflective.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 27 Mar 2009, 14:13

bradavon wrote:Is Photo-realism the same as Photorealism?

Maybe if we used it as a noun.

Wow, I didn't actually know that there was a genuine art style called "Photorealism" until I googled it just now.

Either way, it's not an actual word, so I'll stick to "photo-realism".

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Mar 2009, 18:12

Shingster wrote:Sweet baby jesus, I think this might be the best Bradism yet!

You reckon? I'm more proud of prior ones

.

Shingster wrote:Sweet baby jesus, I think this might be the best Bradism yet!

Yeah yeah, okay, okay

. I was thinking of something else.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 27 Mar 2009, 19:51

That's phenomenal.

A real artist at work. None of your modern art pish.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Mar 2009, 20:05

It would be quicker if he just took a photo.

Pointless art in my eyes, talented and skillfull, but totally pointless.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Mar 2009, 22:47

And the intellectual comment from Romero . . .

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 27 Mar 2009, 23:24

I partially agree - Photorealism in art is commercial but boring.

If his compositions were better or stylized then he could be fantastic.

I'm not saying the guy doesn't have tremendous skill however.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 27 Mar 2009, 23:33

Art is to be admired, and if someone has enough talent to produce photo-realistic work, then it is to be admired.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 27 Mar 2009, 23:45

I admire the skill very much, and it IS art, but on the same time this isn't the kind of art I get excited about, for the reasons Romero mentions.
If you are going to spend so much time and effort into something, at least make the subject interesting and original.

I know different people will have different opinions, and like I said, the skill to be able to do this is certainly amazing, but I don't find it all that interesting to look at, subject-wise.

Like Romero says, it's a bit pointless.

I wish I had the skills to do it, but if I did have those skills, I wouldnt be making this kind of stuff.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Mar 2009, 03:00

I don't see that it's pointless in the slightest. To be able to create the very image of reality in painting is an amazing talent and impresses me enormously. I suppose some of you would've been happier had he dug up some of the drivel that clogs galleries.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 28 Mar 2009, 06:38

Markgway wrote:I don't see that it's pointless in the slightest. To be able to create the very image of reality in painting is an amazing talent and impresses me enormously. I suppose some of you would've been happier had he dug up some of the drivel that clogs galleries.

Absolutely not. This ios better than 'art' (and with 'art' I mean that fake prenentious shit), but at the same time I don't find this INTERESTING to look at, subjectmatter-wise or composition-wise or whatever.

luckystars · Post by **luckystars** » 28 Mar 2009, 12:00

Ditto. You look at it once and go - oh it's a painting.

The end.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Mar 2009, 13:30

Odd comments from people who love many pointless action films.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 28 Mar 2009, 15:23

No odd at all, its a pointless talent.

I go to art galleries all the time, 95% of the work in them is pure shit. This photorealism painter has more talent than all of them put together, but it still makes his work boring as hell.

I went to see Yoko Ono's work the other day again, to say she is an untalented artist is an understatement, her work is 100% bile. She thinks dropping an umbrella on the floor is art, then she got paid half a million for doing it

thats Art now sadly, bollocks. Free cash for untalented artsy fools, and boy do they get the cash! Millions for no work at all.

Photorealsim guy has the talent obviously, but seriosuly would you shell out cash to view his work? it would be interesting, but not exactly exciting.

Esspecially when you could just look at any old photo and someone could say they painted it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Mar 2009, 16:28

I've only seen it on TV but I thought Yoko Ono's work was pretty good, it made you think.

As to "not wanting to buy it", art (any form of it) isn't there to buy, it's there as Art. If we choose to buy it (say a painting, CD or DVD) that is secondary it's original intention.

Yes I would pay an admission fee to see this guys work. I've bought director's work of lesser merit in the past.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 28 Mar 2009, 16:44

bradavon wrote:I've only seen it on TV but I thought Yoko Ono's work was pretty good, it made you think.

Seriously its 100% shit.
How exactly is dropping a mound of soil on the floor? dropping some umbreallas on the floor? tying some string to the ceiling, ART?
You will have to explain that to me, its not good, its something anyone in the entire world could do.

No idea what you saw that made you say it is pretty good?
She is not an artist, she is someone famous for doing nothing at all except having sex with a Beatle and having people call her an Artist, when all she does it wank for cash.

It does not make you think at all looking at a pile of dirt on the floor, except making you think how the fuck does she get away with this shit!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 28 Mar 2009, 19:07

bradavon wrote:Odd comments from people who love many pointless action films.

I love many different kind of movies, as long as they're interesting, fun, whatever. This kinda painting is well made and very skillfull, but it takes about 10 seconds before I go " ok.... next!".

Christopher Doll is an amazing cinematographer... but if he films a 1 dollar bill that's lying still for about an hour or an half in all kinds of different ways, I'm just gonna lose interest in that within minutes, and say 'what's the fucking point!?'.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 28 Mar 2009, 19:21

You could alwasy watch that wankfest film BLUE

where you look at a blue screen for 2 hours.

Now thats a po faced art classic

phot realistic version of a blue wall.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Mar 2009, 21:25

I saw the one where members of the public would walk up and cut pieces out of her clothes, while she was wearing it.

Yi-Long wrote:Christopher Doll is an amazing cinematographer... but if he films a 1 dollar bill that's lying still for about an hour or an half in all kinds of different ways, I'm just gonna lose interest in that within minutes, and say 'what's the fucking point!?'.

Agreed gut my point was a lot of the films many consider classics are entirely pointless, if you think about it. It doesn't stop people enjoying them.

It just makes the "pointless" point made by some to be illogical. The art here is what it is, it's purpose is to convey emotions on the viewer, it doesn't need any more point than that.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 29 Mar 2009, 21:57

bradavon wrote:I saw the one where members of the public would walk up and cut pieces out of her clothes, while she was wearing it.

Yi-Long wrote:Christopher Doll is an amazing cinematographer... but if he films a 1 dollar bill that's lying still for about an hour or an half in all kinds of different ways, I'm just gonna lose interest in that within minutes, and say 'what's the fucking point!?'.
Agreed gut my point was a lot of the films many consider classics are entirely pointless, if you think about it. It doesn't stop people enjoying them.

It just makes the "pointless" point made by some to be illogical. The art here is what it is, it's purpose is to convey emotions on the viewer, it doesn't need any more point than that.

People enjoy those films BECAUSE they're enjoyable. That's the whole point. They're FUN to watch, regardless of being pointless stories or not.

These paintings, for many of us, are NOT very interesting or fun to watch, but no-one is arguing the great skill behind it.

You can say portrait or landscape art is also 'pointless', and in some ways it is.... but when the subject is incredibly beautiful and interesting, it doesn't matter if it's pointless. But I don't find the SUBJECT of THESE paintings interesting or meaningfull or touching or whatever.

I have no idea why we're even arguing about this.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 30 Mar 2009, 16:34

Yi-Long wrote: I have no idea why we're even arguing about this.

Thats Art for you

One mans freshy squeezed shit from his ass is another many daily paid piece of artwork. As people lap up any old shit.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Mar 2009, 17:28

No one is arguing, we're discussing the pros and cons.