Hyperrealist Drawings Are Boring!

[@artprof]

Watch Prof Lieu's critique on Andy Wei's art school portfolio: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5q9maVrgNWer5Y

[@eirvingdiaz7185]

The issue is whether or not art is ready-made-art or gesso on canvas is also art. SOME photorealism or hyperrealism paintings are impressive.

[@ravenkushner]

It's strange because the average person is mostly impressed with photo-realistic work. However, people who actually buy art don't seem to buy that stuff as much as more expressive stuff. I'm not sure the reason. I think people buy what they feel an emotional connection with. It's like how you don't necessarily marry the most handsome guy. You marry the one you actually like.

[@artprof]

That is such a great way of putting it!! I think that hyperrealism is impressive at times, but there is so much more to be said for the stylistic/expressionist work - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@FyFanNollan]

Honestly, hyperrealistic artists are just living printers. There's no point in buying a hyperrealistic drawing when you can just take a picture or print it yourself?

[@mizubiart6230]

I know this is debatable, but I get the feeling the average person as you say does not actually appreciate art but instead treats it merely on a scale of correctness to what is perceived. It explains everything for you, all the lights, volume, subject matter and meaning, so you don’t have to think about it yourself too much. Of course, artists may use hyper realism as a stylistic tool to delve deep into their psyche and that of the viewer in making it known of the time passed and that after all, they’re as human as you. Pieces that are made to be appreciated longer and for more discerning and thoughtful taste are simply not made on demand but inner need, and those who buy them feel touched by that depth of the eye, which is said to be the window to the soul after all.

[@mizubiart6230]

Art which is imposing and interesting is remembered. Art that is perfect is forgotten. There is only a ghost of perception; an imposing piece demands exercice on your part of mind and eye. Because that is what pursuing perfection is; ghost hunting.

[@AshTrees-wp1ig]

Yeah your right. Everyone's gonna like different forms of art so especially when you are an artist this is what makes it so challenging. I myself with my art have to make sure I am happy with what I paint because I am not doing it to seek approval.

[@hammerpocket]

I object to the current use of the term “photorealism” because it implies that a photograph perfectly represents reality. The Photorealists of the late 1960s and 1970s - who inspired the term - weren’t trying to paint actual reality, but reality as translated through a camera lens, the processing of film, and the printing of the image. They purposefully rendered the distortions and flattening inherent to the photographic process. Chuck Close went so far as to paint in individual layers of cyan, magenta, and yellow. I recently started a series of paintings based on photographs. While painting the first one I got caught up in the details - it can be seductive - and ended up with probably the most realistic painting I’ve ever made, at least since school. When I showed that painting along with a later, more painterly one from the same series at a gallery, the more realistic painting got more compliments, but I’m happy to say the preference seemed to be for the subject rather than how realistically it was painted.

[@BettyAlexandriaPride]

So how do you feel about the term hyper-realism?

[@moneycreatestaste]

I think the example, the painting of the oranges is still fairly painterly in that I can read marks made and see how the paint was applied. I think often the goal of photorealism eradicate every human gesture and render an image in a way that appears like a mechanical reproduction. That's a very specific attitude towards painting and if it's a conscious choice that's valid, but it's not an approach that fits my practice or appeals to me personally.

[@artprof]

That makes sense!! Everyone has their own opinions about styles of art :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@yves4eva]

i just remember watching this critique and feeling like i couldn't go to art school because i couldn't compare to this :( just because somebody's technical skill isn't the best doesn't mean their concepts or art is worse!!!!!

[@arturogonzalez-barrios8206]

Technical skills eventually get there with practice

[@Ceceiliapus]

Thank you so much for all of the videos on your channel. I used to love writing and drawing until I was about 17. My urge to create texts and drawings disappeared after that. It's been ten years since then, and I miss creating texts and art. Your videos - especially the critiques - have been inspiring and incredibly helpful. Yesterday, I drew a sketch of my hand from life, and it was so much fun! Thank you!

[@artprof]

You are so welcome! Keep going!!!!! -Prof Lieu

[@rosecandy117]

I love making art purely because I have to choice to paint, draw, etc. whatever I want. I can add certain patterns, change expressions, overexaggerate certain features of the face, change the color scheme, darken the shading and so much more. I still use references to get placement and have a basic understanding of the shadows, but I still make a lot of my own choices when I paint. Obviously people have their own artistic preferences, but I feel that creating something with my own choices and striving to be better is very important to becoming a better artist.

[@artprof]

This is a wonderful way of putting it!! I think there is a lot of value in practicing realism, but there are also a lot of ways to go "above and beyond" creatively :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@jbspiszer908]

Currently challenging myself to use references as guides rather than templates. It's very difficult, but I'm willing to keep working on it. I've grown tired of relying on my references to tell me what to do.

[@nine-vi7rw]

One thing I've noticed about photorealistic art is how often the rendering is prioritized but the proportions are completely off. Rendering is the last part of the painting, the real crux is in the perspective, proportions, anatomy etc. Makes you think a lot of these people don't have a good grasp of fundamentals, hence they can't draw from life or imagination.

[@katherinenoggle6407]

I'm not a huge fan of photo-realism. When i look at an image, i want it to tell me a story. If a photo can tell that story better, that's fine- i love Ansel Adams for example. But if you're just copying a photo, why bother? There's no scope for the imagination, no place for you 'fill in the blank'. By adding your own interpretation to the artist's creation, between the two of you, you've created an experience unique to each viewer. Photo-realism can't do that. It's just a way of showing off some admittedly mad skills.

[@valeriavagapova]

Well said, I absolutely agree with you!

[@jking4973]

What would you say about artists who take their own photographs, and then draw it in photo realism?

[@mydarling3272]

@@jking4973 the same thing, if it already exists, why you should bother to replicate again?

[@jking4973]

@@mydarling3272 a photo captures a second in time, the painter captures the soul.

[@jking4973]

@@mydarling3272 I suppose you completely missed the point of my comment, again, a photograph captures a still second in time, the painter captures the soul of the subject, if you cannot tell the difference between those two things, I cannot help you.

[@MsAdnerb]

Thank you for covering this topic. I unfortunately fall in the category of self doubt when my 'art' isn't as good as others and I tend to give up. This was very eye opening.

[@MsAdnerb]

Trying to find my individual style is difficult and I tend to fall in the cookie cutter category...where I just copy what is in front of me...any suggestions as to finding my own unique style?

[@artprof]

Hi! We have a video on how to find your style: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYiYi6Cwo56Hj7s, I also think this one about comparing yourself to other artists might be helpful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7Tp4GNnNGfmpI -Prof Lieu

[@starvingartistscollective]

Watched this livestream and then watched the critique video and felt like the portfolio was created for his Mum. Often a young person plays the piano or violin to please a critical parent focusing on technique and accuracy rather than being able to engage their own creative interpretations, that's how Andrew's portfolio struck me. Like the portfolio is geared towards someone else's approval of 'accurate' photographic realism as 'good'. Great critique for that video and this topic. TFS!!

[@JackRainfield]

If the TV show, Family Feud, asked 100 people the question, What is the ultimate goal of Art? I think the top answer would be Photo Realism! I think there's a big, shared misconception in the general public that photo realism must be the obvious target for artists and the measuring rod for Art quality. It's so simple! Van Gogh tried really hard but he didn't quite get there. Unfortunately this path eliminates the importance of the artist's heart, soul and pretty much everything else human about a piece of artwork. Every time I've stood in front of a photo realistic piece in a museum one thought overwhelms me... Why even bother?

[@AmerSignLang3]

I think you might want to study some art history before making these kind of claims. Your completely wrong about Van Gogh to start. He wasn’t trying for realism and failing at it. He painting quite intentionally. I’m curious if you had that ‘why bother’ feeling while looking at a banana taped to a wall or a plain blue canvas selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There’s lots of different kinds of art and room for them all.

[@JackRainfield]

@@AmerSignLang3 I guess I wasn't clear enough in my language. I was being facetious in my comment about Van Gogh. Of course Van Gogh was not at all interested in painting in a realism style. The point I was trying to make was that many people in the general public think that photo realism is the highest level of painting. By being facetious I was making the point that Van Gogh had absolutely zero interest in becoming a realistic painter. I'm sorry if I did not communicate that more clearly.

[@AmerSignLang3]

Jack Rainfield Thank you, no, I didn’t get that from your comment. Thank you for clarifying. But again, I think you’re wrong. I think the general public understand that realism is difficult and appreciate the training and technique required to achieve that style. That’s not To say they value these artists exclusively over all other art. Honestly I think you could be a bit more open minded to different styles of art as well.

[@joshjonson2368]

If you can't even draw in 3d you shouldn't be called an artist you're just a printer

[@dshe8637]

I agree. Trying to put in everything you can see doesn't satisfy higher artistic aims. Discrimination is vital. You are right about Van Gogh; he was actually disheartened by his own lack of skill, and made attempts to improve, but his real strength was the very emotion and awkwardness that he failed to overcome!

[@levistone4018]

Realism is on the level with advertising, people are more attracted to what looks instantly pleasing then what takes time to take in and enjoy. A Van Gogh is an emotional wave of color and energy, where as someone who does photo realism is showing discipline and painstaking time put into getting a copy of something that exists. Surrealism and expressionism is infinitely more immersive than realism, when I look for art I like it’s the imagination put into it that inspires me.

[@Leearna_Art]

I never find photo realism boring. Being an artist myself the satisfaction of almost 70% of getting tones and shades etc to the photo. Those who paint and sees a wow realism painting knows just how much time and effort has gone into the art piece

[@artprof]

Thank you so much for watching! People have different takes on photorealism, but no one can deny the effort that goes in to getting all of the accuracies :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@LS-my4rp]

@@artprof I use photo realism in my art not to please others, but to challenge myself to achieve the incomparable perfection of nature itself, an objective I will never fully achieve, but that is my personal journey, that is what drives me to learn and become better until I die.

[@LS-my4rp]

@@artprof PS: I am Samuel Silva, aka Vianaarts, the guy who drew the redhead girl with ballpoint pens in the thumbnail :)

[@katherineg8126]

really glad I found this channel, it's been incredibly helpful

[@artprof]

So glad you found us, welcome to the Art Prof family! -Prof Lieu

[@shehzadamurthy1983]

I completely agree! If the fine art looks like a photograph then why even make it? And hyperrealism assumes that a photo is a right representation of our world, which just isnt true. I do admire the effort it takes to make one. But it ends up becoming a soulless copying of an already existing thing. For me, something like impressionism is way more impressive, because its about observing the real world and trying to figure out ways to represent what we perceive. Have a look at Claude Monet's work, it feels alive to me.

[@artprof]

This is a wonderful way of putting it, I completely agree! There is so much more you can express through experimental markmaking & straying from hyperrealism :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@KnightYu]

Interesting discussion as always; I'm sorry I missed it :/ Just wanted to add my $.02CAD. From my own experience, I've found that drawing from life / direct observation trains me to see the _space & volume_ that the subject occupies. Photo (or other reference) imagery flattens this. Luckily, I've "put in the time" during uni., so I can rely on (muscle) memory to provide the volume when I can't draw from direct observation. [Note: the added benefit is that I can pack a suitcase like a pro LoL]. Also, the few times that I've tried digital drawing, I've tended towards drawing layers of the subject, that are eventually folded-in / flattened) that reflect the volume hidden by my view. It's helped to create a more complete image. .. Looking forward to the next livestream!!

[@artprof]

I’m glad you enjoyed the video! That digital technique you mentioned sounds really cool! We also have a playlist on digital media tutorials here that you might like: kzbin.info/aero/PLvt8_pMl6ywnJZAXtiZAwiF_Tf6nJjDpZ -Marc Stier, Art Prof Staff

[@kevinhardy8997]

If you think realism is boring, look at abstract art. I like realism. Usually like it more if it conveys emotion, not just a random object

[@artprof]

True-- I think when there's original concept behind something and not just a copied render it can be really wonderful! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@traceylamplugh7727]

We are alaways comparing each other and making ourselves miserable, just enjoy it!!!!!!

[@zackisgreasy4503]

Although I think photorealism is impressive, that's inherently against point of why I draw, I don't want anyone to ever feel like when they look at my artwork it is attached to my being and my skill, I want it to be separate from me, now I know that not everybody has the same viewpoint, but that basically renders photorealism useless to me, I don't necessarily need it to look realistic, I need it to engage my viewer and examine a point

[@devoncalhoun9749]

Kehide Wiley actually uses photography as apart of his creative process and his painting are absolutely world bending. He has control from the composition of the shot, down to the final paint stroke.

[@kathleenlindley6157]

The overavailable internet can be wierdly limiting because a person is rarely left alone with their own creativity. I was fortunate to have mentoring from working artists and the stepped instruction in the areas needed fromart school.

[@tamzilla]

Hyperreallism is impressive BUT it seems like a one trick pony. 1) It just means that anyone can create the exact same thing which takes away the uniqueness of your art and 2) you don't create your own style. It won't be recognized as your style. It's all about techniques and creates no feelings either way about it.

[@artprof]

Very true, I share that sentiment! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@GTM9164]

I think there two point one that the kid want his art to be critique because at some everyone will come to a point where they need that to take their art to the next level. That what he wanted to be told what can he improve on. And two, photorealistic drawing is a tool that artist should be to do maybe not perfectly but they Should be able to get the shape and proportion right. It’s the idea that you have to know the rules be for you ca break them. My thoughts on the portfolio the first time I watched this was more along the lines that it was great but look back at it now, I agree that everything is great but I moved on really quickly form each drawing nothing really kept my attention because there was nothing to surprise me. I think in a portfolio like that one only showing that style shows a lack of diversity which is what art school art looking for.

[@artprof]

Yes, there are definitely pros and cons to photorealistic pieces and thank you for sharing your thoughts on this portfolio. We have more portfolio videos you might like in this playlist! kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5bNY4Zrl9N9ac0 - Hema Somaya, Art Prof Staff

[@fionabromby4546]

But is it creative no skill yes as the copyists had. I feel it has a lifeless quality probably because it is not fro life. I’m a portraitist and reallyprefer to paint from life. Hate it when asked to do it from a photo

[@joe_now_here_]

So "details" can be boring (like copying every stroke of a photo) or interesting (like Alex's cool tree trunk growing around the gravestone) depending on the usage. I see the difference when an artist says details vs a non-artist.

[@artprof]

Totally! I think details can help or hurt a piece based on how the artist uses them-- if they're "decoration" or thrown on for no reason, it could distract from the full piece. However, if the piece is really strong, detail can enhance what's working! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@dshe8637]

Detail is there to serve a purpose. A bit like salt in a meal; to be used sparingly

[@GnaReffotsirk]

Most artist I know, mostly beginners and intermediate like to achieve photo realism, and frown on anything less -- whatever that means, less. Personally, I think it's redundant. There's a point where rendering a subject is enough to serve the function it's meant to serve.

[@artprof]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@mendez5525]

I've gotten photos from people who want a portrait done (I do people and animals) and trust me...People often send me AWEFUL references. I get blurry, dark, and even decades old photos where I have to retouch and alter things to "look" better, not exact.

[@BigHenFor]

As no artist, I look to painting and drawing to communicate meaning with me. Photorealism is like Business English: impersonal formality and detail, that tells me little or nothing about the person who wrote it beyond their function. It's not expressive, illuminating, or inspiring. It might be rhetorical, but not poetic, or transformative. It's aesthetic for the sake of aesthetic but not artistic, because it adds nothing from the inner life of the artist or it's subject.

[@Wanderlusteance]

Very well put :)

[@screeningmimi]

BigHanFor Your interpretation is spot on!

[@AmerSignLang3]

As a realist artist, sounds like you have a very narrow view of what art should be. Maybe you should try to be less closed minded and accept value in what artists like me art doing.

[@jking4973]

I completely disagree, and don’t think you are able to see how photorealism can bring a photo to life

[@arturogonzalez-barrios8206]

When we draw from observation we are constantly moving and shifting. Also those able bodied with binocular vision will perceive depth. As an animator, I will say that persistence of vision makes it impossible to capture what we see in a single snapshot because of all of the movement that is always involved even when still. You can't capture a person in a single image and in a way, drawing from figure is a composite image of multiple observations from the model.

[@loveisthehighestsourceofpower]

Thank you for finally saying it! Some hyperrealistic artists do creative works but is usually the exception. I feel like hyperrealism puts me to sleep! I do recognize their expertise in the technical skill but to me art has to be exciting! The public always admire those works becase they assume that is the only art that takes hundreds of hours. The reality is that other type of artists work the same hours.

[@artprof]

Well said! I absolutely agree with you! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@cchemmes5831]

A lot of my art college experience/ assignments were geared toward realism/ developing ability to paint a real still life, a real figure, to draw all the contours of a still life in perfect position... We were graded harshly to any degree that we failed at the realism standard--- increase your values, fix this, fix that. We painted/ drew from life, but could take photos for extra work time, which was pretty much mandatory. What is maddening to me is that when I achieved perfect, hyper-realism, which I felt absolutely pressured to achieve, being rewarded with a 100% & grade of an A, I was at the same time criticized that 'there is no life' in the still life painting because of the hyper-realism. (Clearly, this was an after thought, based on the grade & demands. I wish the demands had been geared to 'life in the painting' & some freedom). I have looked at tons of art, and realize I hate full realism... and yet feel largely lacking in much of any training or much practice outside realism.... So looking at art helps me have some sense of what I like, but I have developed skill in realism & have had very little help/ experience/ practice to develop skill to create art that I find most appealing.

[@artprof]

I completely understand where you're coming from! It can be so frustrating, especially if you are balancing class assignment criteria and general concept critique. I am also someone who loves a tad of realism with some sort of twist! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@KD-cd9bo]

This is a tangent but I absolutely love Shaun Tan's work. The art you showed from 'Arrival' is so stunning I have the book and it makes me cry every single time I go through it. Really hits home because although I'm not a refugee, I have a similar family story (father leaving first to look for economic security, missing the family, the family following and the whole experience of leaving your home to immigrate to a foreign land).

[@artprof]

Thank you so much for sharing your story and your connection with the work! You made me look up Shaun Tan, and now I think I need to get a copy of The Arrival to read as well. ❤️ -Lauryn, Art Prof Teaching Artist

[@windowbreezes]

so the main problem is "stale". its stale when its pure technique and mediocre subject matter. its stale because you cannot see the personality through the strokes. but even when you can see the strokes, not everyone can be a character themselves. its very striking but its not saying anything. everyone can paint. its not enough to read the work freely anymore because it is having the opposite effect and not elevating people's creative daydreaming. its problem attaching a culture of acceptance with a world of required criticism.

[@artprof]

I agree, stale is the best way of putting it! There needs to be more than just plain talent or technical abilities. I want to become invested in the piece! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@rhondasuhrie1703]

How about doing a critique on how boring abstract art can be? It seems redundant a lot of the time.

[@artprof]

We do in this video! kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmHCnH-Yq5mKnbM -Prof Lieu

[@boubou6355]

Very interesting video as always ! I had a question for you (sorry to adress it through the comment section): Art has always been my passion, and I am planning on going to an art college to improve my technique. I am actually studying in an art specialized class (in the french school system) in highschool. However, I feel more technically advanced than all of my classmates, because I probably invest a lot more time in my studies than they do. But now I am worried about what is gonna happen after I graduate, I am affraid that most of the people in the art school I want to get into are gonna have more skills than me. What do you think I should be working on to reach the art college level?

[@artprof]

Check out our Complete Art School Portfolios Guide on our main site, it has everything you need to know to prepare your portfolio, and the resources you need: artprof.org/courses/art-school-portfolio / -Prof Lieu

[@cinnamonbeardstud]

What a weird coincidence I ran into that older video recently and it's the topic of this new one! To expand on my comment to that one in which I said I couldn't detect a distinct voice in this portfolio I want to tell people interested in art that photorealism, like any convention or new technology, needs to be thought of as just another tool and not the finishing condition. Photorealism today might be the trend in what is selling commercially or getting attention online but trends are ALWAYS changing.

[@rosecandy117]

When you guys compared Luna and Tony's portraits, I think I CAN point my finger on it. I think there are two factors to it, and they kind of go hand in hand with each other. The first thing is that Luna doesn't know the person she drew in her work, but Tony knew this person and drew them directly from life. The other factor is that cameras are meant to create 2 dimensional renderings of real life, so that's kind of why Luna's drawing looks kind of flat, and Tony's work has more depth. These go hand in hand because knowing the person, and seeing them in real life gives an illustration more emotion and more of a three dimensional look. At least that's what I picked up on.

[@artprof]

This is such a great critique! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, it is truly wonderful to hear what others think about this kind of work :) - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@PeachyLook]

This video is so interesting and inspiring, thank you so much !!!

[@artprof]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@nelsonyiap81]

It's a technique that takes ages to master, but I don't see any interpretation or ideas in it. It's what gets thousands of likes on Instagram though so I get why artists keep doing it

[@screeningmimi]

Yes, small children and people who haven't studied art think that the more realistic a drawing is, the more 'talented'; the artist. We have cameras now! Mind, I do believe that art instruction should include learning to draw...But it is to art as playing in a cover band is to music.

[@AmerSignLang3]

That’s super offensive. So much time and effort goes into my work and the in person product is so much more impactful than what a tiny Instagram post can convey. If I wanted likes on Instagram, I could could post thirsty fashion or travel photos and avoid the literal 100s of hours of work each of my paintings take to produce. And to say my work lacks interpretation or ideas really shows you ignorance of this delicate process. Look at my work and tell me I lack interpretation Lester-Art,com

[@dshe8637]

@@AmerSignLang3 Time and effort aren't the main criteria though. Some people are looking for different, deeper experiences

[@dshe8637]

@@screeningmimi exactly

[@tomars312]

I just feel like photorealistic drawing is just one way of drawing - one tool of choice. Stylized drawing techniques or illustrations are another. Let's be real drawing photorealistic all the time is so distressing all the time and takes so much effort. It can strip away the fun of spontaneity than an artist has with an idea he/she just got. Why do we always look down on artists that don't use these highly realistic ways of drawing? I think most normal viewers don't really know what art is good for and what a good artist should have. They think as long as you draw like photos, you're amazing. But no, that is what photography was invented for. To show reality as it is, almost. Photography also doesn't really show the reality for 100% - only think of filters, photoshop and retouching. Art is to express, motivate, influence, heal and present ideas and concepts that are new.

[@artprof]

“Art is to express, motivate, influence, heal” that is such a beautiful interpretation of art, thank you for sharing! - Hema Somaya, Art Prof Staff

[@negativghostrdr]

AMEN! AMEN! I think the reality is that we are very safe from being displaced by AI. The expression in the mark making is what it's really all about. Beautiful work on display here folks!

[@artprof]

Expression is art! That's what I say :D - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@genericname8727]

I’ve noticed you guys often seem to stream these videos live and I’ve wondered whether you’d have a larger audience if you also used a streaming platform, like Twitch. I’ve heard that live-streams tend not to be favoured as well by the KZbin algorithm and wonder whether that’s part of why this channel is criminally underrated. I know it’s possible to stream on KZbin and Twitch simultaneously, though I’m a bit technology inept and don’t know exactly how it’s done. Maybe it’d be more trouble than it’s worth for you guys but thought I’d mention it in case you thought it was an idea worth considering.

[@artprof]

Hi! In an ideal world we would stream on Twitch as well, but right now we just don't have sufficient staff to make that happen unfortunately. Perhaps when we have more funding it's something we might consider. Thanks for your comment! -Prof Lieu

[@snowy_days333]

I feel like my drawing is realistic, looks exactly like the reference, has enough saturation, the anatomy is on point, it's digital art so I flipped the canvas a lot. But it still lacks something. If I tried to stylize it , the character probably wouldn't have looked as old as they are😭

[@artprof]

Sometimes I notice with drawing and painting that you have to exaggerate a feature or color or line weight more than you think you need in order for it to look right. -Lauryn, Art Prof Teaching Artist

[@TellYourStory]

I agree with Jordan that it is easy to get sucked into the gimmick of photorealism. From a personal point of view, photorealism is a very intense technical skill. It can be developed and nurtured to create masterful pieces of work. Most of the time, those who hate it do not have the skill or ability to create works of that quality and high a standard.

[@artprof]

I think that being able to recreate an image/scene perfectly is INCREDIBLE, and there is so much to be said about that skill! I do think that sometimes people can get so caught up in developing said skills that concept/originality can be overlooked-- just my personal opinion, though! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@z1522]

There is a vast appetite for Thomas Kincaide (c) merch as well, but that does not elevate it beyond a particularly niche style of illustration, designed to milk a nostalgic response from viewers. I like to compare any Sargent charcoal to any modern hyperrealistic portrait, and ask people which conveys more sense of vitality, personality, expression, then zoom in and see their surprise, at how "detail" is just micro-abstract marks, practically no stringent rendering. Photorealism was NOT attempting to render in that way, but took the source photo itself as the subject, not a shortcut to a representation of a scene. Hyperrealism is actually unrealistic, in that no one's eyes can focus that close, without the depth of field blurring other areas. The tricks of technique impress, while deflecting considerations around intention, aesthetics, compositional decisions, much less emotion, etc.

[@artprof]

Totally agree, if your technique is outshining your intended content (regardless of the technique), you might want to reconsider what you're doing. -Lauryn, Art Prof Teaching Artist

[@andrewa9228]

I wanna draw hyper realistic because it is something i've never done before. It is my style of art but also a challenge

[@artprof]

It can be really educational to draw from observation & study photorealism! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@FuriedHearts]

I think in order to keep photorealism interesting in drawings is to use a medium one would not normally associate with realism; such as colored pencil. I know colored pencil is used in realism a lot these days (blending with solvent), but normally people don't expect such saturation and realism with the medium. When I show people my stuff they are always surprised it's a colored pencil drawing.

[@screeningmimi]

Thanks...Photo realism is only interesting if it has a surreal element. Painterly art is far more interesting. Super realism is like coloring in the numbers. How TEDIOUS.

[@JvdasMichael]

Hyperrealism is more about exaggerating reality. Artists tend to include more emotion and original elements in hyperrealistic art rather than (modern) photorealistic art.

[@andrewlm5677]

Interesting topic and some very nice looking work there. I prefer a detailed and realistic sort of painting personally. Just being realistic doesn’t really make for an exciting image though. The subject matter and color choices seem so much more important. The shirt in the painting of the old man painting was beautifully executed but the light coloring reduces the overall interest of the image for me.

[@artprof]

So true! I think that if the concept is interesting, the work will be interesting, no matter how it's rendered :) - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@fortnag]

The level of patience required for photo realism is exhausting...

[@artprof]

So true, it hurts my head just thinking about it! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@fortnag]

@@artprof not to mention the time investment.

[@darthbee18]

I'll admit I find photorealistic/hyper realistic paintings impressive, but as you note technical ability isn't everything in making a compelling artwork - there's also the conceptual layer, the thought that goes into the piece. Being able to render things realistically is a very handy skill to have, especially when the occasion calls for it - but again, it's not the end all be all. If your concept is lacklustre then the technical ability, no matter how high the skill "level" is, wouldn't make up for that, at least that's what I learn from this video 🤨

[@artprof]

In my opinion, photorealism can be useful, but to many artists, it is not the most important element. This is most likely true when it comes to industry art work, such as animation or graphic design. If you look at these other art school portfolio critiques you’ll see many people do a lot other than photo realism: kzbin.info/aero/PLvt8_pMl6ywliWpmLTuUUT77wfQnYu_MP -Marc Stier, Art Prof Staff

[@JoonKy]

There were a lot of comments detracting from the photorealistic works b/c they were from photos when there are artists (realistic to non-realistic) who work from photos & artists who work from life. I think it's just another tool artists can use. You can find talented mature artists who make volumetric or expressive portraits from photos. I think it's their skills and decisions in how they use photos, that is more important. I think it would be interesting to discuss the strengths of a photo vs photorealistic drawing vs gesture drawing and the different things they communicate. (You got into it a little when you were talking about the cat gesture drawings.) You stressed the importance of knowing your model. Although, I think artists can be expressive through their work, I think we (artists) can overstate the things we know about a subject and how it all gets expressed in the work. I don't think a drawing of a family member is automatically better than one of a stranger. I think they could both be expressive, but I don't see ones intimacy with the model translating to one communicating more in the work.

[@laladeelaladoo7121]

I have a question. I an artist not good enough until they are able to draw realism drawings?

[@artprof]

I don't think so, realism is just one skill, and it may not be a skill that helps you foster your vision! -Prof Lieu

[@fidgetssailing4725]

He's welcome to his opinion, but I think it's really crappy to put down other's work. Look at artists like Jono Dry, not only does he nail the hyperrealism but it's not just copying a photo - he brings a great creativity to that skill. I love this channel - but this interview fell flat.

[@artprof]

That's fair! I think the moral of the story is that any technique can be meh when that's all there is, but at the end of the day, it's just another tool no better or worse than any other that can be really imaginative and satisfying in the hands of a thoughtful person. -Lauryn, Art Prof Teaching Artist

[@JoonKy]

Fwiw, Andy Wei made a different, but similar style painting of a cowboy he did meet, got to know about, and from a photo he took. susankblackfoundation.org/andy-wei-sets-houston-rodeo-art-auction-record-235000/

[@artprof]

Wow cool’

[@irwintuquier4562]

Can those that constantly draw from photos draw just as impressively from life as in without using a photograph? The answer is no

[@artprof]

It always depends on the artist, but I tend to agree with you! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@jjtsmom]

I love all forms of art. That said, So called "artists" who slam artists who can achieve photo-realistic drawings slam them because they can't achieve this themselves. Um, yeah, go mimick Kandinsky, because strategically flicking dots of paints on a canvas is soooo much more skillful.

[@AriesArtist8]

I love hyperrealism in a fantasy version

[@yodenman]

Totally agree. Take a photo if you want realism. Art is all about expressing yourself and allowing your imagination create works to enjoy or ponder over.

[@Pinkranger558]

Not everyone wants to make their art expressive and some people suffer from a disease that makes them they can’t draw without a reference

[@bruna7534]

Stuffs I hate about art community and outside comments: People simply taking random attractive people's selfies, eyes, feminine full lips or celebrities photos and drawing them photo-realistically and other people calling it "real art". Then someone (who, must say, actually never buys art themselves or always complains about commission art prices) comments "why amazing arts like those are unnoticed while garbage are on galleries and being sold for millions!". Saying it straightly, "it's not art" because it's just shallow. It's just a good looking picture you found on internet, it's just a popular celebrity's contextless pic you just picked because it's cool (and it's a celebrity), there's nothing behind it besides the realism itself. Of course it's skillfully impressive, but it's all what it is: a skill. Nothing more. It is impressive by itself, but if it's all and nothing more, there's no actual thoughts involved, you're not different from a mindless meat printer, well, the only actual difference is that you're just printing stuffs the harder way.

[@artprof]

VERY well put, I think you have an amazing point. People who talk big in defense of art like this tend not to understand art itself. - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@tevans_art8236]

People are impressed with the skill, but the creativity isnt there with naturalism 🤷‍♀️ I said what I said. I got bored of drawing portraits in that way years ago. I think learning about naturalistic proportion and shading are important to learn as stepping stones to gaining your own voice.

[@fasque7633]

I always find it interesting how little people know about certain art movements and still feel qualified to kinda lament about it. It really made me kinda cinge when the lady mentioned "artistic interpretation" and "photorealism" in the same scentence - There def need some research to be done here e.g what photorealism is about; motivation and so on... There is a really nice work of Linda Chase from 1975 with lovely paintings about that. In case anybody is interested. And btw. people stopped confusing hyper - and photorealism already in the late 80s. sorry for being so salty :x

[@artprof]

Thank you so much for watching! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@kristinamullen4066]

Technical skill is seperate from emotion and expression.I really think hyperrealism is boring and empty.It repels me.I prefer surrealism and expressionism.I appreciate technical skill but if the final result is similar to a photo, why bother hurting your brain to "copy"?

[@davidvega7773]

I just see it as art that is waaaay at the top of the spectrum.....other artist choose to create at different levels and styles....it's just another discipline in the art universe...on an opposite end you have guys like Joan miró...very basic and boring...

[@artprof]

Everyone reacts to styles & art movements differently-- that's why they're always changing! Thank you so much for watching David :) - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@dshe8637]

Photo realism: yes, impressive... but yawn! I don't mean to sound elitist, but if your work doesn't show a bigger understanding and engagement with the subject, then it's just really shallow. People unfamiliar with art are impressed by lots of 'detail' or a photographic reproduction, but they miss so much. It's a lack of selection and discrimination as to what to include and what to leave out that lets it down. There are heaps of realistic portraits of celebrities and pretty models on KZbin and Instagram, but after a while, those pouts and glassy eyes get a bit nauseating. Art is human, playful, intellectual, striking, emotional and so much more.

[@artprof]

I think a lot of photorealism artwork is fairly shallow-- impressive nonetheless! I agree though, I find that more psychological portrayals of subjects are a lot more interesting - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@YTuseraL2694]

Dislike. You know, in my experience, I've learned that a formidable, even pretty big percentage of the people who are anti-photorealist are automatically pro-abstract. I don't know about you, but as I see it, photorealism and abstraction are polar opposites in the art of today - extremely different and even their fans are very hostile towards each other. And this is not "critique", critique usually refers to analyzing something in detail and NEUTRALLY (or objectively, but being objective in art is hard thing to do nowadays). This is criticism. Negatively speaking about something and often enhancing its negativities (if there are any). The notion that "photorealism can be/is boring" is automatically criticism. And because of all that, you should make (if you didn't already, I didn't check out) a video with something like "why abstract art can be so silly?". Just to be fair and make a fair balance. And the notion itself? I strongly disagree with it. Photorealism (original one, from the late 60s) came into being as a sharp, daring answer against abstraction (abstract expressionism) which was too dominant in the art establishment back then. First generation of photorealists (Close, Goings, Estes, Blackwell, Flack etc) were witnessing and being frustrated that more and more people were becoming "artists" by quickly producing and advertising their big canvases with.. Random and semi-random blobs and splashes of paint and pigments, or blank white canvases etc. Because the abstraction (non-representation) was so dominant, using any references from the real world (particularly photography in this case) was deemed criminal, while technical skill and knowledge (which were an inherent and unbreakable aspects of all great art from the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century) were now outrageously and unjustly but openly and proudly undermined, disparaged and deemed as not artistic and unimportant. Everything was about that infamous "expression". So photorealists, as they became known, realized that all that "expression" was a hugely overrated and actually pretty vague concept, and they literally spit in the face of that art establishment and started using photography and other technology to make high-skilled, photo-realistic paintings. What they depicted in the beginning was not really meant to be too "expressive", that's why there were mostly banal, everyday things like cars, cups of coffee, toys, dolls etc. They wanted to return to the days when true skill and knowledge were integral parts of what we call art, and to even surpass the level of realism by combining relentless practice and art of painting or sculpting with scientific and technological tools (which photos essentially are). But mostly they wanted to break off the clutches of abstraction which was just too dominant and hegemonous - balance needed to be restored, and what could do that better than something that many abstractionists loathed - high skilled, ultra realistic style of painting? Hyperrealists, who came a bit later, in the early 70s, started to use photography much more freely, just as some general guideline and source of technical inspiration (at least many of them, every photorealist and every hyperrealist has a bit different techniques and methods of making) - extreme levels of skill and realism were integral parts of hyperrealist movement, but not the main attraction as in photorealist movement. They started incorporating narrative, story and substance into their paintings, which often incorporated elements of other styles for a better, more meaningful, engaging and creative results - most notably surrealism. The goal of many hyperrealists was to defeat the foolish notion that using photography in painting is cheating or uncreative. The idea that artists have been "freed" by systematic de-skilling of art and elimination of realistic depictions merely because photography got invented in 1840s - and the notion that photography made realistic art "obsolete" and "unecessary" are a big drollery and actually lame excuses and alibies from the lazy people who don't bother to learn and practice anatomy, gesture, perspective, proportions, lights and shadows etc, and because of that are instead claiming how to them representational art is boring or "not engaging" (some really salty go so far to declare that it is not art). They used photography as an excuse - instead of thinking that maybe photography could enhance their abilities, possibilities and results. I myself kind of like some modern art works such as a certain number of paintings by Munck, Mondrian, Picasso etc. Picasso actually has my respect because he learned to paint and draw quite good in his earlier years, and then slowly changed - for better or for worse, it's up to you. But that's all. To end this long comment, I believe that art degenerated when we separated "artists" from "artisans" and "craftsmen" and gave the "artists" vague, too subjective and just unclear meaning. Before, those used to be one unified thing, and so we had David, Ingres, Caravaggio, Da Vinci, Rubens, Rembrandt Raphael etc. Photography should be a helpful tool and partner to painting and drawing, not their competition. What's more, even that, today so much glorified and misticized word "art" is derived from the latin word "ars", which refers to "skill" and "craft".

[@jking4973]

This was perfectly said. And I completely agree!

[@YTuseraL2694]

@@jking4973 thank you.

[@dshe8637]

Interesting points. I don't think however, that most of today's strivers after fine realism are aware of the history and cultural statement of this style. It has become stale and static. When I was a kid, I was so impressed by a friend's avocado bathroom suite. It was new and colourful. It made you feel relaxed and happy compared to the standard white of the past. Decades later, we have all moved on

[@samyes1726]

I mean, if you do a drawing so detailed and accurate that it looks like a photo, why didn't you just take a photo

[@chandaakriti2777]

Then why is not everyone taking photos and selling then??

[@atari_hmb]

Sometimes it's to teach discipline, patience, skill, and attention to detail. You need to know about lighting, anatomy, contrast, and much more. As a result you can translate this to even more beautiful compositions when making movies. Look at Moana. Without photorealism and understanding physics; the movie wouldn't look nearly as beautiful. Moana has a stylized face but her hair looks super realistic with he 4A texture and lighting. So realism is good for Fundamentals on immersing an audience into making something. Sometimes you want someone to dive into your painting, I mean look at Vagabond the manga. So yeah it holds a place in the art field.

[@u_se_l_e_ss3869]

@@atari_hmb what you said I would consider art, but the thing is, photo realism is none of those. Someone doing photo realism is just copying a photo, there is not anatomy, composition, lighting and personality to it. Moana is artistic because it looked at real life, analized it, took inspiration from it, and did its own thing. It has roots in real life but also has its own personality.

[@dshe8637]

@@atari_hmb Digital animation and comics are specific, narrow genres, separate from these

[@saragrant556]

Jordan is up there with Margot Robbie with the nicest teeth I have ever seen????? 😂

[@artprof]

Haha, get him in the Barbie movie! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@saragrant556]

@@artproflol!!!!

[@osmarkeiroz7304]

Hyperrealism is a boring tendency to emphasize technique leaving behind the expression, the trace, the lines that make an Artist's personal style remarkable. When I think of Art I think of representations that transcend reality and not mimetic representations that copy a reality. Overall these hyperrealist draughtsmen or painters as Artists are great Xerox machines although we have to give credit to their impressive technical skills which are the best they have.

[@artprof]

Honestly I agree with you-- while it can be extremely impressive, it's rather surface level to me. I'd probably glance and walk by at a museum, whereas more expressive pieces I'd give a longer stay! - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@Kjetilstorm]

Who needs photorealism in 2021 when we all have our own personal photorealistic artists hiding behind a tiny lens in our cordless portable talky talky devices?

[@artprof]

Haha, you're so right! - Mia Rozear, Art Prof Staff

[@MilkyHorrn]

There’s no artistic merit or expression in hyper realism. Just take a photo and save time.

[@forexdynamicx]

If you work hard maybe you be able to draw hyperealism someday

[@forexdynamicx]

It hurts so much when you can't draw hyperealism 😣

[@artprof]

I gave up on hyperrealism a long time ago-- not just because it didn't come naturally to me, but also because I found more expressive drawing & painting methods to be more entertaining! There's always a place for you in the creative realm, hyper realistically or otherwise :) - Mia, Art Prof Staff

[@williammclean6594]

I think photo realism is so boring. I would even go so far as considering it not art. Because you could get the same result or better just by taking a photograph. That's why when the camera was first invented artists that would represent realism through portraits deviated to different types of art like the impressionalism. Because they knew the camera could do a better job at that. It also takes a lot more skill to make stylized art. You have to think of designing your shapes of making a cool design. But with photo realism, you're really just copying a photo. You don't really have to think too much. Someone argued with me but it takes a lot of skill. Yeah, I guess it takes some skill to learn how to see fine detail. But after you've learned you know how to shade and how to draw. It's really not very skillful. And you're also wasting a lot of time like you're making one drawing that's taking like 300 hours when you could have done like 50 drawings in that time.