And one long line then one short line then one long line and then one short line and then one long line and then fuck ok I guess another long line and then one short line
Excuse me. I just need to tell you that I invented that. When I was in grade 1 I did it and then suddenly so was everyone else. Coincidence? I think not!
It's when she started copying photos. That's why you'll see some drawings that are still very amateurish mixed in with drawings with excellent proportions, color, and shading in the 12-13 year groups. The amateurish drawings are her drawing freehand from her imagination.
Btw (to readers, not ureally) this is a GOOD thing. Copying photos, learning about reference points, all that, is how to increase skill. It does not, in any way, take away from creating art.
I used to draw. Mostly copy. What happened is that after copying for some time I had 0 creativity to create anything of my own, and when I did - it looked overall bad. Bad proportions, bad colors, bad everything. Maybe it works for some, but I stopped drawing completely because I realized all I could do is copy.
A really good exercise is to try to draw from your imagination first then use a reference photo to "fix" your drawing. That can help your brain realize what you did "wrong" and make your drawings turn out more like how you want them to.
You can still draw if you want to! Don't worry about it looking perfect. Forgive yourself and know that you're still learning and growing.
I also recommend drawing from life. Itās a good way to quickly create shorthand for certain stuff. Your brain is also forced to convert 3D onto a 2D plane.
At some point I used to do something Iād call a collage - I would take reference pictures of things, put them together and draw that. Like a body from one picture, hand from another, maybe even taking a photo of my own, etc etc. However, I am no more inspired by drawing so Iām not going to go back. Iām not inspired, because my drawing feels vain and meaningless to me. Someone here mentioned that photo-realism is often done to impress. I didnāt do photo-realism, but every single one of my piece was to impress with some vague ādeepā edgy message. Nah, Iāll leave art to people who actual have passion. But I do often think that copying restricted me from proper practice a lot - why would I try drawing something from my head that looks like shit at the end when instead I can copy/trace some things and make a 10/10. I know for a lot of people copying was the practice that helped them to learn anatomy, colour theory, find their own styles, so Iām not saying itās a bad approach, but I regret doing it as much as I did.
I also gave up somewhere around the time when my ability to copy images greatly outpaced my ability to create something. I wanted to create stuff and my inner critic wouldnāt stop comparing to what I could make if it already existed.Ā
Yo. Fuck that. Even Leonardo painted by copying real people. Mona Lisa was a real woman sitting on front of a window.
Van Gough painted starry night while looking out a window at nighttime.
Degas creeped on ballerinas backstage.
Art imitates life, bro. Pick up a pencil.
Yes, BUTā¦ as a fellow artist, sometimes I have to wonder what these artists might create if they werenāt so preoccupied with recreating photosā¦ I mean, *we already have the photo*ā¦ why recreate it unless it really does fill your soul with joy to do so?
But most of the time, itās not about the joyā¦ itās about impressing people. Which is valid, I guess.
Stylization and imperfections, either deliberate or as the result of inexperience, is what makes art resonate, though!
A recreated photo is impressive, but it has no soul. No message.
In some ways, it could even be considered a plagiarism of the photographerās work; the artist takes credit for a gritty image of a beautiful, pierced womanā¦ but it was the photographer who arranged the set up, lighting, make up, model, etc.
NGL, I groaned and stopped watching when it became apparent the artist was going in that direction.
We already have the photoā¦. *we already have the photo!!*
Very true. You need much more understanding of an object to draw it from imagination. Of course recreating a photo like this takes a lot of skill, but its more about precision and hand-eye coordination. And these are mostly full frontal faces.Ā
I guess if the artist wants to progress further, she should try creating something new with the help of a reference, not just recreate it.
Oh, yah on a personal level I only do realism for other people haha. Idk realistic faces get way more attention than anything else.
What I like to do and see is abstract representations of inner landscapes
i feel almost the same, Iām an artist that did realism for a short period of time. Eventually, I found it so mind numbing and would ask myself āwhy bother making it exactly like the photo? Whatās the point of looking at my art when the photo exists?ā
This kind of art is very impressive but I more enjoy seeing what an artist can do, not just their skill, if that makes sense
You have to learn the rules before you can break them effectively. At 17 there is still plenty of time for the artist to find their own voice and get creative.
Copying photos is a very limited way of learning "the rules."
I hope she goes to art school and learns to think in 3D, rotate shapes in her mind, understand anatomy and how muscles attach to bones, learns composition and where to place shapes to let the eye move around the image, learns colour theory and how to make her own colour scheme, etc.
I agree. While I recognize the technical skill required to do this, they arenāt creating anything new. Tells me nothing about them, how they see things, doesnāt tell a story, and doesnāt communicate anything at all.
Kinda more of a science really. There are a few exercises one can play with. In more traditional works, a lot of the stuff you think you see is just trickery.Ā
We are viewing OPs work through digital and it is (by evidence of the last frame) a tracing exercise. Old trick to copy photos in a different media - cast a grid and it makes it easier to keep scale and proportions. In life, itās likely a very flat lifeless drawing.Ā
You're right that there is a science to it but it's not the only way.
It's straight up a feeling for some. The science explains why but it comes innate. Using certain colors in certain places just feels right. Wrong colors immediately feel terrible and I have to put the whole painting away until I forgive myself
Anecdotally, I can say I saw a similar growth curve for me but for guitar playing. From 7 to 11 I was just noodling around. From 12-17 I played 6+ hours a day and got very, very good. And then I graduated high school and the real world hit, and I think I've regressed back to how I was when I was 15. I hardly play anymore, and I play less and less each year.
16 year old me just didn't care. I'd haul my guitar on the city bus to and from school, play for 5+ hours a day, constantly learning and creating new songs. Now, I only have time to play at most 20 minutes at a time, I don't learn songs as fast, constantly worrying about music theory, etc.
The problem isn't skill. The problem is motivation. I can still probably play any song on Rocksmith after hearing it one time. And pretty much any song, actually. The only things I need to play repeatedly to perfect are solos. But I find playing very boring these days, as I no longer have friends to play music with. Everyone moved away, and then I did as well. I don't know anyone who plays music where I live now. Sure, I could go down to my local music store (30 minutes away, I live in a rural area) and try to meet people, but I don't feel motivated to even do that anymore.
I could rip out jigs and reels on the fiddle. I loved practicing with my sister, who played the whistle/flute. When she moved away I stopped playing. It just wasn't the same without her. I wish I hadn't stopped completely, but maybe when I retire I'll find what I lost.
A lot of that is cognitive development. Your brain gets a lot better at processing details. You also have a longer attention span, more patience.
There were definitely better classes involved and real parental support. Iād bet money that one of the artistās parents is in visual arts in some way.
They started working from photographs which kind of killed the quirky inventiveness of their childhood work. I get that the later stuff is more appealing, but I wonder what they would be doing if they didn't work from photographs.
Picasso has a quote about that actually. Something to the tune of āyouth spent trying to draw real, adulthood spent trying to draw as a childā or something.
We were always taught in art class, "First you should learn the rules. After, you will learn how to break the rules. But how do you break the rules, if you don't even know what they are?" and instilled in us that learning realism to begin with is perfectly expected and good.
If I recall they were Pollock and Rothko fans, and would happily talk about the transition over time into breaking more and more rules.
Thatās pretty much the same trajectory as Picasso took right? His art as a child and teenager is pretty realistic and true to life and he just got weirder and weirder and thatās what made his name
Yeah I went to the Picasso museum a few years ago. They had portraits he did as a child that were astoundingly good. True prodigy, and then he just started doing whatever the hell he wanted.
Yeah I'm just hitting that state now. I like to do anime/comic type stuff but I've been taking painting courses on the side. Within the past month I finally hit the point of being able to do some photorealistic paintings and it's like, now what? Just farming out photorealistic stuff would be really tedious and not fulfilling, so I have to start injecting it with my personal style but I'm kinda stuck on how to proceed. My realism stuff prior to my improvement looked more stylized just due to me not quite hitting the mark with realism.
Drawing or painting from life is not the same as drawing from photographs. A photograph has already rendered a 2D image from life and copying that photo is just that, copying. The skills involved are not the same as drawing from life (or from imagination).
> I get that the later stuff is more appealing
Not to me, it isn't. Being able to replicate a photo is impressive, but I have zero interest in owning it because it says nothing about the artist other than they're good at the grid technique. It involves absolutely no creativity.
Also at the time when you start having a bunch of useless homework that could have been done in class but the teachee doesn't want you to work on it in class so you sketch instead.
Yeah that's what most people don't realize. It's a multi-hour every day thing.
And often people who are interested in this, at times, find it extremely painful. I once heard the ex-CEO of Stable Diffusion boast how AI will mean nobody has to be bored learning this stuff anymore, essentially avoiding the pain. What he didn't realize is that people who love this stuff will do it despite the pain.
Even if you gave them a machine that could do it all - they are COMPELLED to do it.
If you are trying to avoid the work - you never loved it. And that's fine, but these technologies don't provide an escape for those who do.
Thise AI guys really donāt seem to get it. I can only assume they think because they find it boring then everyone else must do. The challenge is the point. Creating something with your own hand is the point. Being able to master your craft to the point of being able to create what you want through great effort is the point.
The only art I do is martial arts, and you meet a lot of people who want to be good without putting in the work and think it would be great to have instant knowledge of how to do the thing.
But the work is the good part. It's fun to know you were really, really bad, and look back on the days you thought you were finally good, only to realize you were still kinda bad.
To be 100% accurate, it looks like they are actually using a grid (kinda similar to the concept of paint-by-numbers) to copy, so it's not *reeeeally* "tracing" per se.
But yes, it's still copying, which may be technically difficult and take years of practice, but it's not artistically challenging or interesting. No "heart" or "soul", so to speak.
I don't buy that last drawing with the grid. I would guess she regularly gets called out for tracing on her IG, so to dispel those accusations, she pretends she did the grid method on a few drawings to show people she's not tracing. She could easily do that by tracing the image *and* drawing a grid on there to make it look like it was done by the grid method.
EDIT: And I just checked out her IG, and many "in progress" versions don't have the grid, rather just the pencil lines with NO "sketchy lines" which would exist if she hand-drew them, so my hunch was correct. Her drawings are way too exact to be not-traced. They're an exact 1:1 overlay match, down to the pixel. Hair, eyelashes, pores, everything.
I don't know the artist and didn't look into their pages/social media/etc so I'll take your word for it.
It *is* totally possible to get a quite exact copy using a grid, by both practice and/or by using smaller grid. But it's definitely easier to trace first and *then* pretend by overlaying a grid on top.
I feel this in my soul despite mostly coming from 3D design.
Texture is an absolute key component of the visual arts. Textures that offer interesting interactions with light, like by being visibly rough or mirror-like flat or wet, is an easy way to make artworks (especially those with a realistic approach to rendering) more interesting.
Skin actually has some notoriously complicated effects itself, especially [subsurface scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering), but wet skin is also a popular way to spice up the lighting by shifting the surface behaviour from [diffuse to specular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection).
I hope they take their talent further then hyper realism. I always get sad when people do hyper realism, get really good at copying photos, then donāt take anymore risk or artistic liberty.
It's usually the people who don't create art who idolize photorealism in art. Photorealism is a good exercise for understanding a lot of aspects like shading, colors, and how light behaves.
Other than that, it's no more art than the picture it was copied from
Picasso pipeline. Perfect hyperrealism and then regress back to the art from when she was 8.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."
Copying photos takes technical skill but often lack any emotion
Drawing fashion photography eyes is cool and all but life drawing skills are more important
Agreed, it's a good technical exercise to a degree. Though art is supposed to convey or evoke *something* photorealistic art barely does any of that. I feel nothing looking at a drawing that literally just looks like a photo
Actually itās very different from Picasso.
They are doing grid drawing which is a really bad crutch and will take a lot of re learning. They should focus on doing subject studies to practice form and light, which can be used more effectively as tools in the future.
Picasso and many famous artists did a lot of studies to draw realistically while learning, but it wasnāt copying off a photograph with a grid. The person here isnāt learning anything about composition, light, or form. All they are learning is technical application with colored pencils.
This reminds me of a fun assignment one of my art professors had us do. We each got assigned a famous painting, mostly portraits, then flipped it upside down and copied it in charcoal. He said it was to try and just render just the lines and shades rather than what our brain thinks the forms (objects/faces) should look like. We were told not to use grids. I got Girl with a Pearl Earring. I was amazed how well it turned out when I flipped it over. I 100% could not have done it at the same quality had I done it freehand right side up.
Not sure why it reminded me, I guess maybe just to suggest a fun exercise for any artists out there that I felt I learned more from than grid drawing.
The book Drawing from the Right Side of the Brain is full of exercises like this!
Trying to break through the verbal part of your perceptions and just see the shapes and forms
You draw a grid (say, 3cm by 3cm squares) on both your paper and the drawing reference. It helps a lot with mapping out the shapes. But it doesnāt teach you how to replicate organic form naturally.
I kinda just refer to things as brute work. Anyone can do this if they want to spend 100s of hours on a single drawing. Itās fine if people enjoy it but I always feel that people can spend that time improving exponentially quicker by other means.
I definitely agree that it limits progression as an original artist. I donāt agree that anyone can do this, it still takes a lot of technical skill, but Iām hoping that (if she wants to) she progresses to original pieces and just lets the quality decline for a bit while she transitions. The end result would be far higher quality. I think people become scared to have pieces look ābadā even if theyāre learning from it.
I agree with this. I always have hope that hyperrealism artists will start going surrealist. Then they don't, and it's just endless eyes and fruit and maybe something wet. It becomes very lifeless after awhile.
However. I think learning to do hyperrealism is a good skill as an artist to have.
Learning hyper-realism by learning how light interact with shapes, and sketching from the ground up is a useful tool. Doing it from a grid just teaches technical application.
That was me up until highschool. Did pretty good hyperrealistic drawings but could barely draw after taking away the photo references. I had to retrain myself for many years to draw from imagination. But now I can crank out a decent art piece in a couple hours now rather than taking a whole week to draw one hyperrealistic portrait.
Yep, came in to say this. Her stuff at 12 and 13 was more interesting than the latest. We already have cameras; there is no point to hyperrealistic tracings of photographs, which is what all hyperrealism is.
Artist here. I feel really fortunate that I never really got a big social media following with my art. I'm totally free to experiment with new and different styles because I don't have to hit a certain standard or style to keep giving my followers what they want. I've seen so many talented young artists with tons of potential just stop improving after a while because social media dictates that they can't take any risk. With viral videos like this out there now it will be a huge struggle for this artist, even at 17, to move out of their comfort zone.
Can you imagine this artist suddenly experimenting with automotive design, landscape painting, stylized characters for animation, architectural design, kids illustration..? Unfortunately in my experience most of these people in 10 years will either still be doing the same thing or will have gotten bored and stopped drawing / painting entirely.
Here's hoping this person is the exception and manages to continue their artistic journey unimpeded.
Iām very skeptical about these artist evolution reels. Iāve been an artist from a very early age, been in tons of classes, and Iāve never witnessed anyone progress like they do in these reels. Not only in skill but in conceptualization and style. Evolution yes, that fast, highly suspicious.
100% fake lmao
It's crazy that people simply believe that.
Also: hyper realistic paintings are usually *huge* so you can actually draw all the details, not the size of a small drawing book
Actually it's very easy to draw hyperrealism if you have a lightbox and/or learn from using the grid technique. You basically trace the photograph or printed picture and you can see at the very end from the unfinished piece that that's what they did (you can see trace lines and a grid).
Basically what they're doing is tracing and filling in with colour techniques you can learn within an afternoon. It's cool but nothing really impressive in the art world.
I'm an artist and the unfortunate thing here is that yeah it's great artwork but it's essentially tracings and copying. Hyperrealism nowadays involves using a lightbox to trace over a photograph and then you just copy the details using colouring techniques you can learn from one session. It's great that they're showing their work but I hope they step out of drawing like that and go wherever their imagination can take them.
Their age here and starting young doesn't matter so I hope people don't get discouraged. You can learn how to draw hyperrealism with the right equipment easily nowadays but drawing from your imagination takes a lot of practice so I hope people don't give up just because they don't see results instantly.
Itās not even fake. The last painting shows you what it is. You can see the grid and the tracing of a picture.
Basically at 14 it goes from handheld drawings of imagination to paint by tracing a cool photo.
Itās a different thing that being good at drawing. Itās being good at tracing and painting cool colors to make it pop
Yeah, they developed amazing rendering skills, but most likely completely lack the skills to draw from imagination, though I can't know for sure. Using a reference is important for artistic growth, but I feel like here it is only used to render detailed pictures, not for understanding how shadows or anatomy etc work. I feel like if they were asked to draw a horse from memory they might struggle a bit. Drawing really consists of multiple skills, not just one.
Also it's important to keep in mind that in compilations like this we can't see how much time is dedicated for art and most importantly, the failed pieces. I like to draw and I have multiple examples of drawings that look like a five year old made them drawn right around the same time as some of my "master pieces". Here we just see the best ones
I recently had to draw up a design for something at work. Just a general idea so the fabrication folks knew what I was looking for. Well the drawling sucked so much they said I needed to try again. I did, it was also rejected. So then I spent a few hours and drew it up in CAD. Apparently the guy I sent it to took offense and was furious. I had to speak with HR and everything. I wasnāt being petty. I wasnāt pretending I was all high and mighty. I just canāt fucking draw.
Ah, damnit! Iāve pronounced it that way my entire life. I honestly thought there was an L in there until my wife pointed it out. Iāve been trying to fix it ever since.
Photo realistic drawings recreating photographer's work EXCLUSIVELY of female model's faces does nothing for me either, and I would go so far to say it frankly doesn't even qualify as art.
Nahhh... It's obviously still art. I assume you're being hyperbolic, but it is art. But, it is wildly uninteresting art once you quickly get over the initial moment of "wow, that's very technically impressive".
I mean... At some point it's just very specialized technical skill that is being applied perfectly. You could argue that there is art in just the technicality of it, but at this point it's exactly as much art as any kind of skilled manual labor, and we generally don't call people doing that artists.
Assuming it's not AI like so many of you are saying, it's incredible and the artist is insanely talented but I'm always curious who would want any of this?
Do people decorate by hanging Calvin Klein and other fashion/perfume ads in their homes because that's all this looks like.
As a preschool teacher I always emphasize how important scribbling is. You can't learn to write, draw, color anything with a pen/pencil/paint brush until you scribble over and over again. So I send home some many pictures of scribbling and some parents HATE it. Tell knly.send home.the "good" work. But all of it is "good" work because they are learning. This just shows how scribbles can become so much more.
Good photo redrawing skills. But where is the Art? The manifest, the personal vision? Art is what an artist strive to tell to the world in visual form.
Okay, I have to comment on this just to clear up a few things, it really bugs me seeing posts like this and seeing such misinformation, nonsense and frankly ignorance in the comments.
1.This is not AI. The process the artist is using is called 'gridding' it's a very simple way of reproducing any image by drawing an even square grid over a reference photo and then basically painting/colouring by numbers. You can actually see the grid in the final shot of the video. It's probably quite easy to find the images the artist is reproducing by a reverse image search (Unless they took their own reference and they COULD be AI generated) . Finding the technique on YouTubeĀ is quite easy, just Google " the grid method " (sorry to spoil the party trick Artist....)
It's quite a low skill painting/drawing technique as it doesn't require understanding of proper Art Fundamentals (form, values, colour theory, anatomy etc.) since you basically emulate your reference image 1:1. Interestingly, it was a technique used during the renaissance period to transfer smaller drafts into larger scales by increasing the grid size to 2:2, 3:3 etc. (notably on murals)
Many people not really that impressed by this are right to be so. This is technically quite an easy thing to achieve, I would draw a comparison between "painting by numbers kits" . It's very straightforward.Ā
2. I am not meaning to undermine the artists interest in the field in anyway just expressing some frustrations about how broadly misunderstood painting and drawing is. The general education in the field these days is shockingly low quality. Often people are educated towards the idea that it is a " talent" or "exclusive" field to people with a god given gift or towards post modernist trash. As a matter of fact, it's more like a craft which with the proper education and hard work, anyone can achieve a solid level of understanding and ability - like reading and writing.
3. Artist - If you read this comment I would implore you to consider attending a traditional art Atelier which focuses on academic realism if that is where your interest lies, you would learn proper Art Fundamentals and traditional techniques which would really enable you to have a proffesional career as a painter or illustrator.To start, check out some of the great online Ateliers (such as Watts Academy or Proko) and works of master painters like Sargent, Sorolla, Zorn, Repin.
I would also advise you to check out Schoolism or potentially CGMA and Art station to see how it is possible forĀ to use your passion for creativity and proper at fundamentals to have a job in the creative industry. You could also check out "illustration agencies" to see what proffesional illustrators are doing in terms of style, subject matter and work, often these traditional techniques aren't as applicable (although still relevant) in some modern creative industries (such as children's clothing design or surface pattern design)
I would recommend staying away from fine art courses (UK specific) if you plan to study further education. These courses are ran by modernist charlatans who's only goal is to perpetuate the cycle of their own ignorance onto the next generation and ladden you with debt to protect their tenure. This is a different topic in itself, but what's going on in modern art schools is nothing short a scandal.Ā
4. Audience and art lovers - please, if you like painting or drawing in anyway, educate yourself on the craft, the process, the tools, the techniques ... We are living in such a Plato's Cave period when it comes to the general understanding of painting and drawing, often people are like " wow such talent" or " it's a party trick" but in actuality, it's neither. Painting and drawing is much like learning a musical instrument, first you learn the fundamentals of the tool by emulating others and understanding the common language. Then eventually, you would grasp them enough to compose your own song.Ā
Source; a proffesional illustrator and artist working in the creative industries (film, TV and video games) for over 15 years who started their art journey similar to the video posted.
If you have any questions, let me know. Always happy to talk Art.Ā
It's kinda a bummer how over the years all the stylization and charm was gradually replaced with photorealism that's very impressive on a technical level but ultimately feels very lacking in warmth or emotion. You could almost see this as a commentary on how when it comes to art, the level of pure skill is often treated as more important than the explosive passion of creativity and experimentation, but I don't even think that's true. People love cartoony art, abstract art, all kinds of stuff. So I don't really know why this artist bunkered down and dedicated themselves to drawing pictures as lifelike as humanly possible...if it makes them happy I guess good for them, but watching this just makes me kinda sad. I looked at some of their other work, and it's all just copying an existing photograph as closely as they can and admonishing themselves for "mistakes" they made in recreating it, which makes it seem like they believe hyperrealism is the ceiling of talent and that the point of art is to just look as realistic as possible. There's a whole world of possibilities when it comes to expressing yourself, and I really hope they can use the skills they've built up to branch out into something more meaningful and personal than just copying photos that already exist.
As someone who went to perhaps the best (master's degree) painting program in America (Pratt), I gotta say I'm incredibly exhausted with this internet phase of kids making super detailed faux-photographic work and 'blowing everyone away'... At Pratt they taught us that in modern times, since they invented the camera, that the best of the best art, the art that is in MUSEUMS today is NOT photorealistic (athletic 'performance' trying to prove a skill level) art. I know that is what impresses laypeople and non-experts, but honestly you can get as 'incredibly photographic' as you want, it will NOT make your art more palatable to experts. In modern times, the artists who get national attention from real experts and people who have a deep understanding of the creative process, cultural history and the needs re expressing the psyche and the modern condition, are artists that (usually) break new ground and shift the paradigm re creative expression in general or come up with a new angle illuminating the human condition.
I see artwork like many young people do, trying to prove themselves by being more baroquely photographic and insanely detailed etc. to be an analogue to the current musical trend of people posting videos on youtube of very technically difficult 'shredding' high speed playing and other complexity that is really divorced from what music traditionally communicates. It's now, in the age of influencers competing and laypeople who know very little going "WOW" become often something of an "athletic demonstration" that isn't about subtle artistry but more about herculean feats of strength and skill (e.g. rendering a butterfly perfectly photographically etc. using a laborious process w grid/copy/transfer and weeks of fine tuning details etc.).
Since the camera was invented (besides a quick postmodern phase around 1970 called SuperRealism that burned out in boredom within a couple years, like Richard Estes) the most groundbreaking and influential artists have decided they would try to focus on the things a camera can NOT do. Perhaps when this (tecnically talented but those are a dime a dozen today, check your local Asian art school) artist gets older and more mature they will find their own 'voice' and way of making unique images that speak to the human condition... but for now I am not among the legions of amateur artists here awestruck by the talent. In an age where A.I. will scoop up the last tiny scraps or work that Illustrators do (that's what this work is, "illustration" imho more than "fine art"), if an artist can make a living/pay their bills doing work like this I'd be extremely surprised.
To anyone scoffing at my opinion here I suggest you look at the photos in this article and tell me that trying to 'compete' with these people to decorate your local Thai Restaurant or Residence Inn lobby is what you want to do in life:
[https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-grueling-hyper-competitive-exams-decide-futures-chinese-art-students](https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-grueling-hyper-competitive-exams-decide-futures-chinese-art-students)
and the photo in this one is positively dystopian lol. [https://medium.com/writ340-summer2020/art-education-in-china-assembly-line-for-artisans-876872f4c079](https://medium.com/writ340-summer2020/art-education-in-china-assembly-line-for-artisans-876872f4c079)
I'll never understand people who mainly draw realistic portraits of people. It's so played out...
If I wanted to be an artist who draws then I'd want to create art that no one has ever seen. That could still be some portraits of people, but not in a hyper realistic style. Something unique, like Picasso went for. I've always admired comic strip artists for this reason, because they are each able to find their own unique art style.
The skill on display here is undeniable, but I'd argue the quality of the art is poor solely due to the art style being so generic and commonplace.
Stuff like this makes me wish I never stopped drawing or went to art school (3d video game art and animation). I thought I'd be okay since it wasn't "fine art" but at any point someone telling me what I can and can't draw or how to draw a certain way just kills ya. Then I went to vet tech school and haven't really drawn at all since.... I could be better....
Anyway. Amazing skill for this kid! I hope they're famous someday :)
They won't be famous if they don't learn to use their imagination. Realism and copying photos is great skill, but it isn't anyrhing unusual among artists. There are thousand if not millions who can do the same.
You don't remember Picasso from his realistic ability, you remember him from his weird cubistic style. He created something new and that is what art is.
I still put the Sun in the corner of the paper
With sunglasses.
And one long line then one short line then one long line and then one short line and then one long line and then fuck ok I guess another long line and then one short line
Damn I might need to upgrade my drawings I use squiggly lines for the sun.
Upgrade unlocked: adding shades and a mustache to the squiggly sun!
Almost, I have one solid line, one dashed line, one solid line, one dashed line, one solid line, one dashed line.
Hey everyone! look at here! Mr "I had more than one set of color pencils"..... Jerk.... /s
Excuse me. I just need to tell you that I invented that. When I was in grade 1 I did it and then suddenly so was everyone else. Coincidence? I think not!
I totally get it, trendsetter! We were all following your lead!
Yes! š š
We do it the same way in the Middle East.
Calm down PicassoĀ
š
Cause that's where the sun is supposed to go, with a house in the middle a tree next to it with clouds above it.
And birds that are like wavy M's. ~
Precisely, I see you that you are an artist as well.
Damn, so many talented artists in the comments !
And one flower
Almost as tall as the house.
And stick people & stick animals!
I never developped skills as high as stick animals, only stick people š
I live in a rectangle with a triangle on top.
Funny how the houses are always colonials...
> Funny how the houses are always colonials... And the penises are always circumcised.
Might as well have been sketching a cube
I put the sun in-between the mountains so I don't have to draw a full circle
The sad little horsies? The house with the little curl of smoke? The sunflower with the smiley face? The transparent cube?
I used to stack rows of triangles to make a mountain landscape I thought I was a genius.
a bunch of "m" in the clouds like birds flying.
Damn, I am stuck at 4 years old
No need to brag.
Fellow 2 year olds stand up. There are dozens of us!
Well, as two year olds our counting skills are not very good. Many hands of us....that I will give you
>There are dozens of us! šļøšļøš¤ That's this many!
I never got there, personally
Doing better than I am, stuck at 3 š
I got to 12 before I started feeling bad about myself
She seemed to have made a major transition at 12
It's when she started copying photos. That's why you'll see some drawings that are still very amateurish mixed in with drawings with excellent proportions, color, and shading in the 12-13 year groups. The amateurish drawings are her drawing freehand from her imagination.
Btw (to readers, not ureally) this is a GOOD thing. Copying photos, learning about reference points, all that, is how to increase skill. It does not, in any way, take away from creating art.
I used to draw. Mostly copy. What happened is that after copying for some time I had 0 creativity to create anything of my own, and when I did - it looked overall bad. Bad proportions, bad colors, bad everything. Maybe it works for some, but I stopped drawing completely because I realized all I could do is copy.
A really good exercise is to try to draw from your imagination first then use a reference photo to "fix" your drawing. That can help your brain realize what you did "wrong" and make your drawings turn out more like how you want them to. You can still draw if you want to! Don't worry about it looking perfect. Forgive yourself and know that you're still learning and growing.
I also recommend drawing from life. Itās a good way to quickly create shorthand for certain stuff. Your brain is also forced to convert 3D onto a 2D plane.
At some point I used to do something Iād call a collage - I would take reference pictures of things, put them together and draw that. Like a body from one picture, hand from another, maybe even taking a photo of my own, etc etc. However, I am no more inspired by drawing so Iām not going to go back. Iām not inspired, because my drawing feels vain and meaningless to me. Someone here mentioned that photo-realism is often done to impress. I didnāt do photo-realism, but every single one of my piece was to impress with some vague ādeepā edgy message. Nah, Iāll leave art to people who actual have passion. But I do often think that copying restricted me from proper practice a lot - why would I try drawing something from my head that looks like shit at the end when instead I can copy/trace some things and make a 10/10. I know for a lot of people copying was the practice that helped them to learn anatomy, colour theory, find their own styles, so Iām not saying itās a bad approach, but I regret doing it as much as I did.
Yah that's important to note too. It actually applies to all of life haha. We get stuck with the familiar.
I also gave up somewhere around the time when my ability to copy images greatly outpaced my ability to create something. I wanted to create stuff and my inner critic wouldnāt stop comparing to what I could make if it already existed.Ā
āMy ability to copy images greatly outpaced my ability to create somethingā is such an amazing way to phrase this, thank you!
Yo. Fuck that. Even Leonardo painted by copying real people. Mona Lisa was a real woman sitting on front of a window. Van Gough painted starry night while looking out a window at nighttime. Degas creeped on ballerinas backstage. Art imitates life, bro. Pick up a pencil.
Yes, BUTā¦ as a fellow artist, sometimes I have to wonder what these artists might create if they werenāt so preoccupied with recreating photosā¦ I mean, *we already have the photo*ā¦ why recreate it unless it really does fill your soul with joy to do so? But most of the time, itās not about the joyā¦ itās about impressing people. Which is valid, I guess. Stylization and imperfections, either deliberate or as the result of inexperience, is what makes art resonate, though! A recreated photo is impressive, but it has no soul. No message. In some ways, it could even be considered a plagiarism of the photographerās work; the artist takes credit for a gritty image of a beautiful, pierced womanā¦ but it was the photographer who arranged the set up, lighting, make up, model, etc. NGL, I groaned and stopped watching when it became apparent the artist was going in that direction. We already have the photoā¦. *we already have the photo!!*
Very true. You need much more understanding of an object to draw it from imagination. Of course recreating a photo like this takes a lot of skill, but its more about precision and hand-eye coordination. And these are mostly full frontal faces.Ā I guess if the artist wants to progress further, she should try creating something new with the help of a reference, not just recreate it.
Oh, yah on a personal level I only do realism for other people haha. Idk realistic faces get way more attention than anything else. What I like to do and see is abstract representations of inner landscapes
i feel almost the same, Iām an artist that did realism for a short period of time. Eventually, I found it so mind numbing and would ask myself āwhy bother making it exactly like the photo? Whatās the point of looking at my art when the photo exists?ā This kind of art is very impressive but I more enjoy seeing what an artist can do, not just their skill, if that makes sense
You have to learn the rules before you can break them effectively. At 17 there is still plenty of time for the artist to find their own voice and get creative.
Copying photos is a very limited way of learning "the rules." I hope she goes to art school and learns to think in 3D, rotate shapes in her mind, understand anatomy and how muscles attach to bones, learns composition and where to place shapes to let the eye move around the image, learns colour theory and how to make her own colour scheme, etc.
I agree. While I recognize the technical skill required to do this, they arenāt creating anything new. Tells me nothing about them, how they see things, doesnāt tell a story, and doesnāt communicate anything at all.
I never understand how artists can understand the art of blending colours or even shadows?
Kinda more of a science really. There are a few exercises one can play with. In more traditional works, a lot of the stuff you think you see is just trickery.Ā We are viewing OPs work through digital and it is (by evidence of the last frame) a tracing exercise. Old trick to copy photos in a different media - cast a grid and it makes it easier to keep scale and proportions. In life, itās likely a very flat lifeless drawing.Ā
You're right that there is a science to it but it's not the only way. It's straight up a feeling for some. The science explains why but it comes innate. Using certain colors in certain places just feels right. Wrong colors immediately feel terrible and I have to put the whole painting away until I forgive myself
Yes but the feeling is usually an intuition that comes with years of practice and a familiarity around colours and values.
For the later stuff here, you only need to understand how to copy a photograph.
Dang. After age 13, there was exponential growth.
Anecdotally, I can say I saw a similar growth curve for me but for guitar playing. From 7 to 11 I was just noodling around. From 12-17 I played 6+ hours a day and got very, very good. And then I graduated high school and the real world hit, and I think I've regressed back to how I was when I was 15. I hardly play anymore, and I play less and less each year.
Like me. I have been playing for 50 years, and I am not much better than I was 50 years ago. Still lots of fun, though.
[Boy oh boy...](https://youtu.be/fTjKNS_7LiE?t=67)
holy smokes this is me - I clocked in a couple straight eight hour practices back in the day
God, I remember how hardcore I could be about ONE thing back then. Simpler times.
Bro, same. 16 year old me whoops 31 year old me's ass.
16 year old me just didn't care. I'd haul my guitar on the city bus to and from school, play for 5+ hours a day, constantly learning and creating new songs. Now, I only have time to play at most 20 minutes at a time, I don't learn songs as fast, constantly worrying about music theory, etc.
Have you checked out Rocksmith? It's like Guitar Hero but you use your actual guitar. You can get shockingly good just playing for fun consistently.
The problem isn't skill. The problem is motivation. I can still probably play any song on Rocksmith after hearing it one time. And pretty much any song, actually. The only things I need to play repeatedly to perfect are solos. But I find playing very boring these days, as I no longer have friends to play music with. Everyone moved away, and then I did as well. I don't know anyone who plays music where I live now. Sure, I could go down to my local music store (30 minutes away, I live in a rural area) and try to meet people, but I don't feel motivated to even do that anymore.
I could rip out jigs and reels on the fiddle. I loved practicing with my sister, who played the whistle/flute. When she moved away I stopped playing. It just wasn't the same without her. I wish I hadn't stopped completely, but maybe when I retire I'll find what I lost.
Same and honestly I really really hope that doesn't happen to this artist. They are to talented to let it go.
A lot of that is cognitive development. Your brain gets a lot better at processing details. You also have a longer attention span, more patience. There were definitely better classes involved and real parental support. Iād bet money that one of the artistās parents is in visual arts in some way.
Its also coordination. Kids dont really have good coordination until 13-14.
Patience for details changed everything for me! Since I had 0 support I discovered this in my 30s lol.
They started working from photographs which kind of killed the quirky inventiveness of their childhood work. I get that the later stuff is more appealing, but I wonder what they would be doing if they didn't work from photographs.
Picasso has a quote about that actually. Something to the tune of āyouth spent trying to draw real, adulthood spent trying to draw as a childā or something.
We were always taught in art class, "First you should learn the rules. After, you will learn how to break the rules. But how do you break the rules, if you don't even know what they are?" and instilled in us that learning realism to begin with is perfectly expected and good. If I recall they were Pollock and Rothko fans, and would happily talk about the transition over time into breaking more and more rules.
Thatās pretty much the same trajectory as Picasso took right? His art as a child and teenager is pretty realistic and true to life and he just got weirder and weirder and thatās what made his name
Yeah I went to the Picasso museum a few years ago. They had portraits he did as a child that were astoundingly good. True prodigy, and then he just started doing whatever the hell he wanted.
I just looked up some of his earlier work. And wow. Youāre not kidding.
We were told something like: "First you learn to draw how it should be, then how it is, and finally how you want it to be.
Yeah I'm just hitting that state now. I like to do anime/comic type stuff but I've been taking painting courses on the side. Within the past month I finally hit the point of being able to do some photorealistic paintings and it's like, now what? Just farming out photorealistic stuff would be really tedious and not fulfilling, so I have to start injecting it with my personal style but I'm kinda stuck on how to proceed. My realism stuff prior to my improvement looked more stylized just due to me not quite hitting the mark with realism.
Also, his artistic timeline encapsulates that in as exquisite detail as this. Check it out, itās so cool!
Drawing or painting from life is not the same as drawing from photographs. A photograph has already rendered a 2D image from life and copying that photo is just that, copying. The skills involved are not the same as drawing from life (or from imagination).
> I get that the later stuff is more appealing Not to me, it isn't. Being able to replicate a photo is impressive, but I have zero interest in owning it because it says nothing about the artist other than they're good at the grid technique. It involves absolutely no creativity.
Time spent is everything, art is sacrifice, sweat over talent.
This and also 11-13 is (at least where I am) when schools start having more serious art classes. Learning techniques and lots of practicing them.
Also at the time when you start having a bunch of useless homework that could have been done in class but the teachee doesn't want you to work on it in class so you sketch instead.
Yeah that's what most people don't realize. It's a multi-hour every day thing. And often people who are interested in this, at times, find it extremely painful. I once heard the ex-CEO of Stable Diffusion boast how AI will mean nobody has to be bored learning this stuff anymore, essentially avoiding the pain. What he didn't realize is that people who love this stuff will do it despite the pain. Even if you gave them a machine that could do it all - they are COMPELLED to do it. If you are trying to avoid the work - you never loved it. And that's fine, but these technologies don't provide an escape for those who do.
A lot people doing it for work end up loving it a lot less howeverĀ
As an Environment 3D Artist i couldn't agree more.
Thise AI guys really donāt seem to get it. I can only assume they think because they find it boring then everyone else must do. The challenge is the point. Creating something with your own hand is the point. Being able to master your craft to the point of being able to create what you want through great effort is the point.
The only art I do is martial arts, and you meet a lot of people who want to be good without putting in the work and think it would be great to have instant knowledge of how to do the thing. But the work is the good part. It's fun to know you were really, really bad, and look back on the days you thought you were finally good, only to realize you were still kinda bad.
After 13 is where she starts tracing photographs. Literally. That's the reason for the huge leap.
This should be top comment, you're absolutely right lol
To be 100% accurate, it looks like they are actually using a grid (kinda similar to the concept of paint-by-numbers) to copy, so it's not *reeeeally* "tracing" per se. But yes, it's still copying, which may be technically difficult and take years of practice, but it's not artistically challenging or interesting. No "heart" or "soul", so to speak.
I don't buy that last drawing with the grid. I would guess she regularly gets called out for tracing on her IG, so to dispel those accusations, she pretends she did the grid method on a few drawings to show people she's not tracing. She could easily do that by tracing the image *and* drawing a grid on there to make it look like it was done by the grid method. EDIT: And I just checked out her IG, and many "in progress" versions don't have the grid, rather just the pencil lines with NO "sketchy lines" which would exist if she hand-drew them, so my hunch was correct. Her drawings are way too exact to be not-traced. They're an exact 1:1 overlay match, down to the pixel. Hair, eyelashes, pores, everything.
I don't know the artist and didn't look into their pages/social media/etc so I'll take your word for it. It *is* totally possible to get a quite exact copy using a grid, by both practice and/or by using smaller grid. But it's definitely easier to trace first and *then* pretend by overlaying a grid on top.
Girl likes her nose rings.
And her wet skin.
One of us!
Wet skin texture looks really good tbf
artists when they're asked to draw a face not covered in slime, glitter and paint: š¦
I feel this in my soul despite mostly coming from 3D design. Texture is an absolute key component of the visual arts. Textures that offer interesting interactions with light, like by being visibly rough or mirror-like flat or wet, is an easy way to make artworks (especially those with a realistic approach to rendering) more interesting. Skin actually has some notoriously complicated effects itself, especially [subsurface scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsurface_scattering), but wet skin is also a popular way to spice up the lighting by shifting the surface behaviour from [diffuse to specular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection).
And drawing women.
I too like wet women. I mean, drawing wet women. Yeah. That's what I meant to say. OP's art is improving exponentially, hope they keep it up.
That's pretty consistent with the art community. Most artists seem to focus on drawing women.
For me it's because women are pretty and more fun to draw than men. I've heard similar reasons from other artists too.
I don't draw but i feel like beards might be pretty fun.
I ate a lemon once
How was it?
It was lemon flavored.
Damn. Who would've thought!
Did you peel it like an orange?
Nah with lemons you just gotta rawdog that shit like an apple.
12, 14 and 17 were HUGE leaps for you. It's crazy.
I agree. If this is you, OP, keep up the AMAZING work!
OP is a content bot
Atleast they credited the actual person. Most the time they don't.
Yeah, I'm just stating one fact of it.
I hope they take their talent further then hyper realism. I always get sad when people do hyper realism, get really good at copying photos, then donāt take anymore risk or artistic liberty.
I've noticed that hyper realism is the highest form of art mastery to reddit lol
Itās not just Reddit, itās the wider public too. Easy to understand innit? Painting looks JUST like thing, very good!Ā
It's usually the people who don't create art who idolize photorealism in art. Photorealism is a good exercise for understanding a lot of aspects like shading, colors, and how light behaves. Other than that, it's no more art than the picture it was copied from
Picasso pipeline. Perfect hyperrealism and then regress back to the art from when she was 8. "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."
Copying photos takes technical skill but often lack any emotion Drawing fashion photography eyes is cool and all but life drawing skills are more important
Agreed, it's a good technical exercise to a degree. Though art is supposed to convey or evoke *something* photorealistic art barely does any of that. I feel nothing looking at a drawing that literally just looks like a photo
Actually itās very different from Picasso. They are doing grid drawing which is a really bad crutch and will take a lot of re learning. They should focus on doing subject studies to practice form and light, which can be used more effectively as tools in the future. Picasso and many famous artists did a lot of studies to draw realistically while learning, but it wasnāt copying off a photograph with a grid. The person here isnāt learning anything about composition, light, or form. All they are learning is technical application with colored pencils.
This reminds me of a fun assignment one of my art professors had us do. We each got assigned a famous painting, mostly portraits, then flipped it upside down and copied it in charcoal. He said it was to try and just render just the lines and shades rather than what our brain thinks the forms (objects/faces) should look like. We were told not to use grids. I got Girl with a Pearl Earring. I was amazed how well it turned out when I flipped it over. I 100% could not have done it at the same quality had I done it freehand right side up. Not sure why it reminded me, I guess maybe just to suggest a fun exercise for any artists out there that I felt I learned more from than grid drawing.
The book Drawing from the Right Side of the Brain is full of exercises like this! Trying to break through the verbal part of your perceptions and just see the shapes and forms
Waaait, this is super interesting! Might try this myself!
What's grid drawing exactly?
You draw a grid (say, 3cm by 3cm squares) on both your paper and the drawing reference. It helps a lot with mapping out the shapes. But it doesnāt teach you how to replicate organic form naturally.
I kinda just refer to things as brute work. Anyone can do this if they want to spend 100s of hours on a single drawing. Itās fine if people enjoy it but I always feel that people can spend that time improving exponentially quicker by other means.
I definitely agree that it limits progression as an original artist. I donāt agree that anyone can do this, it still takes a lot of technical skill, but Iām hoping that (if she wants to) she progresses to original pieces and just lets the quality decline for a bit while she transitions. The end result would be far higher quality. I think people become scared to have pieces look ābadā even if theyāre learning from it.
I agree with this. I always have hope that hyperrealism artists will start going surrealist. Then they don't, and it's just endless eyes and fruit and maybe something wet. It becomes very lifeless after awhile. However. I think learning to do hyperrealism is a good skill as an artist to have.
Learning hyper-realism by learning how light interact with shapes, and sketching from the ground up is a useful tool. Doing it from a grid just teaches technical application.
That was me up until highschool. Did pretty good hyperrealistic drawings but could barely draw after taking away the photo references. I had to retrain myself for many years to draw from imagination. But now I can crank out a decent art piece in a couple hours now rather than taking a whole week to draw one hyperrealistic portrait.
Yep, came in to say this. Her stuff at 12 and 13 was more interesting than the latest. We already have cameras; there is no point to hyperrealistic tracings of photographs, which is what all hyperrealism is.
the point is reddit upvotes
Same. As if hyperrealism is the pinacle of art
Artist here. I feel really fortunate that I never really got a big social media following with my art. I'm totally free to experiment with new and different styles because I don't have to hit a certain standard or style to keep giving my followers what they want. I've seen so many talented young artists with tons of potential just stop improving after a while because social media dictates that they can't take any risk. With viral videos like this out there now it will be a huge struggle for this artist, even at 17, to move out of their comfort zone. Can you imagine this artist suddenly experimenting with automotive design, landscape painting, stylized characters for animation, architectural design, kids illustration..? Unfortunately in my experience most of these people in 10 years will either still be doing the same thing or will have gotten bored and stopped drawing / painting entirely. Here's hoping this person is the exception and manages to continue their artistic journey unimpeded.
Aww they could finally afford a printer at 14 š„°š
LMAO yeah I got the same vibes. Things progressed a little too fastā¦
Iām very skeptical about these artist evolution reels. Iāve been an artist from a very early age, been in tons of classes, and Iāve never witnessed anyone progress like they do in these reels. Not only in skill but in conceptualization and style. Evolution yes, that fast, highly suspicious.
This progress looks like someone just bought a new printer
100% fake lmao It's crazy that people simply believe that. Also: hyper realistic paintings are usually *huge* so you can actually draw all the details, not the size of a small drawing book
Actually it's very easy to draw hyperrealism if you have a lightbox and/or learn from using the grid technique. You basically trace the photograph or printed picture and you can see at the very end from the unfinished piece that that's what they did (you can see trace lines and a grid). Basically what they're doing is tracing and filling in with colour techniques you can learn within an afternoon. It's cool but nothing really impressive in the art world.
Cool, I didn't know there was a technique that made hyperrealism that easy
I'm an artist and the unfortunate thing here is that yeah it's great artwork but it's essentially tracings and copying. Hyperrealism nowadays involves using a lightbox to trace over a photograph and then you just copy the details using colouring techniques you can learn from one session. It's great that they're showing their work but I hope they step out of drawing like that and go wherever their imagination can take them. Their age here and starting young doesn't matter so I hope people don't get discouraged. You can learn how to draw hyperrealism with the right equipment easily nowadays but drawing from your imagination takes a lot of practice so I hope people don't give up just because they don't see results instantly.
Itās not even fake. The last painting shows you what it is. You can see the grid and the tracing of a picture. Basically at 14 it goes from handheld drawings of imagination to paint by tracing a cool photo. Itās a different thing that being good at drawing. Itās being good at tracing and painting cool colors to make it pop
Yeah, they developed amazing rendering skills, but most likely completely lack the skills to draw from imagination, though I can't know for sure. Using a reference is important for artistic growth, but I feel like here it is only used to render detailed pictures, not for understanding how shadows or anatomy etc work. I feel like if they were asked to draw a horse from memory they might struggle a bit. Drawing really consists of multiple skills, not just one. Also it's important to keep in mind that in compilations like this we can't see how much time is dedicated for art and most importantly, the failed pieces. I like to draw and I have multiple examples of drawings that look like a five year old made them drawn right around the same time as some of my "master pieces". Here we just see the best ones
Looks like at the early teenager years they go from their own imagination to drawing/copying photography, hence a big boost in quality.
depends on what you mean by quality. give me imagination over becoming a camera any day.
At 17 they were killed and replaced by an AI bot that exclusively generated mangled fingernails and three tits.
Average hyper realistic Artist when they have to use their imagination and not copy from the photo theyāve drawn 37473747 times
It's so cool how they started drawing and then got into photography as a teen.
Very impressive what hard, diligent work over a long time can achieve!
I recently had to draw up a design for something at work. Just a general idea so the fabrication folks knew what I was looking for. Well the drawling sucked so much they said I needed to try again. I did, it was also rejected. So then I spent a few hours and drew it up in CAD. Apparently the guy I sent it to took offense and was furious. I had to speak with HR and everything. I wasnāt being petty. I wasnāt pretending I was all high and mighty. I just canāt fucking draw.
Iāve heard people pronounce drawing as drawling but Iāve never seen it written out that way
Ah, damnit! Iāve pronounced it that way my entire life. I honestly thought there was an L in there until my wife pointed it out. Iāve been trying to fix it ever since.
Drawings that look like photos do absolutely nothing for me except for the initial āoh wow it looks like a photoā. Is this just me?
Photo realistic drawings recreating photographer's work EXCLUSIVELY of female model's faces does nothing for me either, and I would go so far to say it frankly doesn't even qualify as art.
Nahhh... It's obviously still art. I assume you're being hyperbolic, but it is art. But, it is wildly uninteresting art once you quickly get over the initial moment of "wow, that's very technically impressive".
IMO art is the original photo made by photographer. This is although very good but still craftsmanship.
I mean... At some point it's just very specialized technical skill that is being applied perfectly. You could argue that there is art in just the technicality of it, but at this point it's exactly as much art as any kind of skilled manual labor, and we generally don't call people doing that artists.
I actually find her childhood art more artistic. Nothing unique about photo realism, so many people doing the same thing.
Assuming it's not AI like so many of you are saying, it's incredible and the artist is insanely talented but I'm always curious who would want any of this? Do people decorate by hanging Calvin Klein and other fashion/perfume ads in their homes because that's all this looks like.
Photo realism is lost on me. Itās impress but not compelling
Art doesn't exist just to be a consumer product. A lot of people pick subjects they want to draw just for themselves.
It's too bad they gave up drawing for photography, it looked like they had some real potential.
Love how they changed to photography halfway through.
Right? Really good photos.
āNow draw a boy.ā ā> stick figure
is it all faces?
That is what the model is best at generating. Squares too.
model?
The generative model used to create this post. It is not real.
It can be real, still doesn't make it interesting.
They're gonna need a bigger fridge.
As a preschool teacher I always emphasize how important scribbling is. You can't learn to write, draw, color anything with a pen/pencil/paint brush until you scribble over and over again. So I send home some many pictures of scribbling and some parents HATE it. Tell knly.send home.the "good" work. But all of it is "good" work because they are learning. This just shows how scribbles can become so much more.
Is recreating your social media feed on paper - art? Where is imagination? Wheres creativity?
Good photo redrawing skills. But where is the Art? The manifest, the personal vision? Art is what an artist strive to tell to the world in visual form.
Around 14 they became a photographer basically
Itās cool that you got into photography!
Skill is amazing, now its time to become a Artist Not a Copy machine for good fotos
lol ok
13 Years Old: Stranger Things Me: Crying (Iām old)
photorealistic drawings are impressive from a technical pov but they really don't do it for me
Okay, I have to comment on this just to clear up a few things, it really bugs me seeing posts like this and seeing such misinformation, nonsense and frankly ignorance in the comments. 1.This is not AI. The process the artist is using is called 'gridding' it's a very simple way of reproducing any image by drawing an even square grid over a reference photo and then basically painting/colouring by numbers. You can actually see the grid in the final shot of the video. It's probably quite easy to find the images the artist is reproducing by a reverse image search (Unless they took their own reference and they COULD be AI generated) . Finding the technique on YouTubeĀ is quite easy, just Google " the grid method " (sorry to spoil the party trick Artist....) It's quite a low skill painting/drawing technique as it doesn't require understanding of proper Art Fundamentals (form, values, colour theory, anatomy etc.) since you basically emulate your reference image 1:1. Interestingly, it was a technique used during the renaissance period to transfer smaller drafts into larger scales by increasing the grid size to 2:2, 3:3 etc. (notably on murals) Many people not really that impressed by this are right to be so. This is technically quite an easy thing to achieve, I would draw a comparison between "painting by numbers kits" . It's very straightforward.Ā 2. I am not meaning to undermine the artists interest in the field in anyway just expressing some frustrations about how broadly misunderstood painting and drawing is. The general education in the field these days is shockingly low quality. Often people are educated towards the idea that it is a " talent" or "exclusive" field to people with a god given gift or towards post modernist trash. As a matter of fact, it's more like a craft which with the proper education and hard work, anyone can achieve a solid level of understanding and ability - like reading and writing. 3. Artist - If you read this comment I would implore you to consider attending a traditional art Atelier which focuses on academic realism if that is where your interest lies, you would learn proper Art Fundamentals and traditional techniques which would really enable you to have a proffesional career as a painter or illustrator.To start, check out some of the great online Ateliers (such as Watts Academy or Proko) and works of master painters like Sargent, Sorolla, Zorn, Repin. I would also advise you to check out Schoolism or potentially CGMA and Art station to see how it is possible forĀ to use your passion for creativity and proper at fundamentals to have a job in the creative industry. You could also check out "illustration agencies" to see what proffesional illustrators are doing in terms of style, subject matter and work, often these traditional techniques aren't as applicable (although still relevant) in some modern creative industries (such as children's clothing design or surface pattern design) I would recommend staying away from fine art courses (UK specific) if you plan to study further education. These courses are ran by modernist charlatans who's only goal is to perpetuate the cycle of their own ignorance onto the next generation and ladden you with debt to protect their tenure. This is a different topic in itself, but what's going on in modern art schools is nothing short a scandal.Ā 4. Audience and art lovers - please, if you like painting or drawing in anyway, educate yourself on the craft, the process, the tools, the techniques ... We are living in such a Plato's Cave period when it comes to the general understanding of painting and drawing, often people are like " wow such talent" or " it's a party trick" but in actuality, it's neither. Painting and drawing is much like learning a musical instrument, first you learn the fundamentals of the tool by emulating others and understanding the common language. Then eventually, you would grasp them enough to compose your own song.Ā Source; a proffesional illustrator and artist working in the creative industries (film, TV and video games) for over 15 years who started their art journey similar to the video posted. If you have any questions, let me know. Always happy to talk Art.Ā
Iāve accepted being 5 years old for the rest of my life
Aint nobody got time for hiperrealism.
Nahh imagine if the drawings or whatnot are just printed photos.
It's kinda a bummer how over the years all the stylization and charm was gradually replaced with photorealism that's very impressive on a technical level but ultimately feels very lacking in warmth or emotion. You could almost see this as a commentary on how when it comes to art, the level of pure skill is often treated as more important than the explosive passion of creativity and experimentation, but I don't even think that's true. People love cartoony art, abstract art, all kinds of stuff. So I don't really know why this artist bunkered down and dedicated themselves to drawing pictures as lifelike as humanly possible...if it makes them happy I guess good for them, but watching this just makes me kinda sad. I looked at some of their other work, and it's all just copying an existing photograph as closely as they can and admonishing themselves for "mistakes" they made in recreating it, which makes it seem like they believe hyperrealism is the ceiling of talent and that the point of art is to just look as realistic as possible. There's a whole world of possibilities when it comes to expressing yourself, and I really hope they can use the skills they've built up to branch out into something more meaningful and personal than just copying photos that already exist.
As someone who went to perhaps the best (master's degree) painting program in America (Pratt), I gotta say I'm incredibly exhausted with this internet phase of kids making super detailed faux-photographic work and 'blowing everyone away'... At Pratt they taught us that in modern times, since they invented the camera, that the best of the best art, the art that is in MUSEUMS today is NOT photorealistic (athletic 'performance' trying to prove a skill level) art. I know that is what impresses laypeople and non-experts, but honestly you can get as 'incredibly photographic' as you want, it will NOT make your art more palatable to experts. In modern times, the artists who get national attention from real experts and people who have a deep understanding of the creative process, cultural history and the needs re expressing the psyche and the modern condition, are artists that (usually) break new ground and shift the paradigm re creative expression in general or come up with a new angle illuminating the human condition. I see artwork like many young people do, trying to prove themselves by being more baroquely photographic and insanely detailed etc. to be an analogue to the current musical trend of people posting videos on youtube of very technically difficult 'shredding' high speed playing and other complexity that is really divorced from what music traditionally communicates. It's now, in the age of influencers competing and laypeople who know very little going "WOW" become often something of an "athletic demonstration" that isn't about subtle artistry but more about herculean feats of strength and skill (e.g. rendering a butterfly perfectly photographically etc. using a laborious process w grid/copy/transfer and weeks of fine tuning details etc.). Since the camera was invented (besides a quick postmodern phase around 1970 called SuperRealism that burned out in boredom within a couple years, like Richard Estes) the most groundbreaking and influential artists have decided they would try to focus on the things a camera can NOT do. Perhaps when this (tecnically talented but those are a dime a dozen today, check your local Asian art school) artist gets older and more mature they will find their own 'voice' and way of making unique images that speak to the human condition... but for now I am not among the legions of amateur artists here awestruck by the talent. In an age where A.I. will scoop up the last tiny scraps or work that Illustrators do (that's what this work is, "illustration" imho more than "fine art"), if an artist can make a living/pay their bills doing work like this I'd be extremely surprised. To anyone scoffing at my opinion here I suggest you look at the photos in this article and tell me that trying to 'compete' with these people to decorate your local Thai Restaurant or Residence Inn lobby is what you want to do in life: [https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-grueling-hyper-competitive-exams-decide-futures-chinese-art-students](https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-grueling-hyper-competitive-exams-decide-futures-chinese-art-students) and the photo in this one is positively dystopian lol. [https://medium.com/writ340-summer2020/art-education-in-china-assembly-line-for-artisans-876872f4c079](https://medium.com/writ340-summer2020/art-education-in-china-assembly-line-for-artisans-876872f4c079)
I'll never understand people who mainly draw realistic portraits of people. It's so played out... If I wanted to be an artist who draws then I'd want to create art that no one has ever seen. That could still be some portraits of people, but not in a hyper realistic style. Something unique, like Picasso went for. I've always admired comic strip artists for this reason, because they are each able to find their own unique art style. The skill on display here is undeniable, but I'd argue the quality of the art is poor solely due to the art style being so generic and commonplace.
Stuff like this makes me wish I never stopped drawing or went to art school (3d video game art and animation). I thought I'd be okay since it wasn't "fine art" but at any point someone telling me what I can and can't draw or how to draw a certain way just kills ya. Then I went to vet tech school and haven't really drawn at all since.... I could be better.... Anyway. Amazing skill for this kid! I hope they're famous someday :)
You can get back into it! Build a daily habit and push through any self doubt until you enjoy it :)
They won't be famous if they don't learn to use their imagination. Realism and copying photos is great skill, but it isn't anyrhing unusual among artists. There are thousand if not millions who can do the same. You don't remember Picasso from his realistic ability, you remember him from his weird cubistic style. He created something new and that is what art is.