General Art: Photorealism with Pencil

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Santi

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
592
Location
Honduras
I've never seen something this realistic with a pencil. This is one of the most amazing drawings i've ever seen in my whole life. Diego Fazo, who's only 22 years old, has this amazing ability to create photorealistic pictures with pencil only.

sensazioni_by_diegokoi-d5hk8nb.jpg

profile_picture_by_diegokoi-d5hd5ey.jpg



http://diegokoi.deviantart.com/

BTW sorry if its the wrong section.
 
It is indeed impressive, but not tremendously interesting or captivating, as an art piece.
 
DJ P0N3 said:
I wouldn't have believed that was made by pencil if you hadn't included the second picture.
Click to expand...

Still can't believe that is done with a pencil.
 
Disney said:
Cath said:
It is indeed impressive, but not tremendously interesting or captivating, as an art piece.
Click to expand...

Except for the whole subjectivity thing...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I came in to say the exact same thing as Cath, and Disney art isn't subjective shut up you nerd.

And to semi-rant on photorealism--yeah, it's super-impressive and takes a lot of talent (levels of talent that I doubt I could ever achieve), but after you look at a photorealistic piece (at least the vast majority of them), and you get over the whole "DUUUUDE this looks so REEEAAALLL" thing, they're all pretty...stagnant. That's why, for example, Picasso's later, abstracted art is far more prolific than his earlier stuff (such as http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896 , and if you look, he painted when he was 15).
 
valk said:
Disney said:
Cath said:
It is indeed impressive, but not tremendously interesting or captivating, as an art piece.
Click to expand...

Except for the whole subjectivity thing...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I came in to say the exact same thing as Cath, and Disney art isn't subjective shut up you nerd.

And to semi-rant on photorealism--yeah, it's super-impressive and takes a lot of talent (levels of talent that I doubt I could ever achieve), but after you look at a photorealistic piece (at least the vast majority of them), and you get over the whole "DUUUUDE this looks so REEEAAALLL" thing, they're all pretty...stagnant. That's why, for example, Picasso's later, abstracted art is far more prolific than his earlier stuff (such as http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896 , and if you look, he painted when he was 15).
Click to expand...


Except for the whole subjectivity thing...
 
valk said:
Disney said:
Cath said:
It is indeed impressive, but not tremendously interesting or captivating, as an art piece.
Click to expand...

Except for the whole subjectivity thing...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I came in to say the exact same thing as Cath, and Disney art isn't subjective shut up you nerd.

And to semi-rant on photorealism--yeah, it's super-impressive and takes a lot of talent (levels of talent that I doubt I could ever achieve), but after you look at a photorealistic piece (at least the vast majority of them), and you get over the whole "DUUUUDE this looks so REEEAAALLL" thing, they're all pretty...stagnant. That's why, for example, Picasso's later, abstracted art is far more prolific than his earlier stuff (such as http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896 , and if you look, he painted when he was 15).
Click to expand...


Spot on fellow art nerd.:quite:
A photorealistic drawing/painting is really only as interesting (or, really, actually, less interesting, since it's now a copy) as the photograph it's being duplicated from. For sake of argument, even if this wasn't copied from a photograph and is all from memory or whatever, the most impressive part is how realistically the dynamics of the fluid were captured. DIS NIGGA RELLY NOS HOW WATR FLOWZ. But, assuming it's a duplicated photo, if this were a photo, there wouldn't be any thread of "holy shit check out how beautiful and captivating this is! The contrast and focus is amazing and her der whatever" It's an impressive drawing, but not an impressive photograph, and 'it's a drawing not a photo' aside.. it's BOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIIINNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. While he is talented, if you photorealistically draw boring photographs all it makes you is a really talented and slow photo printer. And if from memory, then you're just a human camera.
 
Those are still very much subjective thoughts.

I find photo-realism and anatomically correct sculptures/paintings (even exaggerations of such) much more interesting and captivating than any of the more abstract works by someone like Picasso. There is some appreciation to be had in a work where you cannot hide anything. If you make a mistake on an anatomy sculpt, everyone will be able to see it. The same cannot be said for something like Cubism. This is not to say all abstract works are pretentious or idiotic, as obviously others (such as yourselves) feel differently about them.

I find it foolish to be stating absolutes about something as undefined and subjective as "art."
 
Disney said:
Those are still very much subjective thoughts.

I find photo-realism and anatomically correct sculptures/paintings (even exaggerations of such) much more interesting and captivating than any of the more abstract works by someone like Picasso. There is some appreciation to be had in a work where you cannot hide anything. If you make a mistake on an anatomy sculpt, everyone will be able to see it. The same cannot be said for something like Cubism. This is not to say all abstract works are pretentious or idiotic, as obviously others (such as yourselves) feel differently about them.

I find it foolish to be stating absolutes about something as undefined and subjective as "art."
Click to expand...

I also find abstract art very... comformist. Its supposed to represent something, but I simply cant find it on most of them. Everyone will probably have a different perspective when starting at one abstract piece. Its like a Rorschach test. Obviously im talking about those pieces that dont have a meaning, those that dont really portray anything, that look like a 4 year old's work.
abstract-art.jpg


Like that. I just cant find the meaning on that image except "music". I dont find the emotions that are trying to be transmitted.


But, its personal opinion and I might be wrong too. Maybe I dont have enough culture to recognize it, but thats what I think. I prefer a realistic piece over abstract.

Theres an exception tho; I do like impressionism and post-impressionism.
 
y r u pervs starin at a foto ofa woman takin a showa, creeps

in case someone is not too smart, holy shit that's amazing pencil art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom