This is NOT a photograph!

[erivera]

Hi,

Did you see that?... Well, this is NOT a photograph!...  this is an airbrush paint!
(Source: www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp)

Maybe this is an off topic post non related to photography but please read the picture author art definition (Dru Blair):

"Art is the selective re-creation or conversion of reality by the human mind into concrete imagery according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Real or imagined concepts are filtered and altered through the human mind to the artist's hand to create an image or sound that did not exist before. The reason photography does not qualify as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality."

Ok, I know this is a very controversial statement but it realy hit me 

[habakuk]

Thank you so much for showing the artwork as well as bringing up this topic. I feel this quote is worth a discussion.

First, I am impressed by the realism of the paint brush work. It definitely shows the high skills of the artist. It also shows a rather boring subject for someone who strives to tickle the imagination and use the mind as a interpretative instrument...

As Ted once said: you can make photographs OF something or make photographs ABOUT something. What the paint brush artist did here was to brush a picture OF someone. Whatever you do, any artwork that is 2D lacks the third dimension and therefore has to make use of the minds power of imagination to form a feeling of a third dimension in our brain. But much more importantly, the first part of the quote states something that simply is true for photography too. The more the artist contemplates about the subject matter, the more he tries to use all his available skills and technical instruments (be that a camera or a brush) to bring out what he thinks makes up the subject matter, the more it will become a picture about the subject matter.

Both in paint brush artistry as well as photography the artist decides what to include or not include, what light to use, what to emphasize what to diminish... he decideds (more or less consciously) what source material the viewer will have to contrsuct his own interpretation of what he sees on the picture.

I have read so many times that painters have problems with photography because it only takes a click to create a picture, while they have to work for hours... so what? Is art defined by the amount of technical skills? Or is it defined by the amount of creativity? Can it be defined at all?

I feel his choice of subject matter is very fine to show his craftsmanship and skills with the brush, but he decided to use all the style elements a photographer would in taking a rather uncreative, standard photo of a beautiful woman. So, I miss the creative thought, the idea, the "ABOUT" - here it is just a picture OF a woman. Regardless of the skills it took to get her pictured so nicely.

cheers
®

[eob]

Dear Dru contradicts himself. He first describes what photography is all about (in the first two sentences) and then, he insinuates that photography lacks all of that. And then, to add insult to the injury, he illustrates his theory by showing us this kitsch of all kitsches as a reinforcement to his words. What he just demonstrated by doing that, is that it is he who thinks that art equals manual skills. I think that the author of that "art definition" above is confusing craft with art. I think the art can be something totally opposite. Art is the idea, the hint, the innuendo, the rumor, the premonition, the feeling and may or may not have anything to do with manual skills. In this portret above, I see nothing except manual skills and a very attractive model. This is definitely NOT an art.

After all that's been said, I would like to extent my sincerest condolences to all students that participated in Dru's portrait workshops...

[erivera]

habakuk and eob, thanks for reading this.

... you can make photographs OF something or make photographs ABOUT something....

I feel his choice of subject matter is very fine to show his craftsmanship and skills with the brush, but he decided to use all the style elements a photographer would in taking a rather uncreative, standard photo of a beautiful woman. So, I miss the creative thought, the idea, the "ABOUT" - here it is just a picture OF a woman. Regardless of the skills it took to get her pictured so nicely...

It couldn't be better expressed.

In my opinion Mr. Blair has a very fine brushpainting skills and he knows very well the technics on his work.  But I don't understand his point of view of "art" definition.  Maybe he can see something that I can't so I couldn't say that this picture doesn't reach the art statement but simply I prefer to say I don't understand his point of view.

What I will never understand and of course I never will agree is the reason to say "...photography does not qualify as art...   ...it is only a mechanical recording of reality...".

Why he is so aggressive with photography?   Don't you think that our own eyes are biological mechanisms for recording of reality too?  What a perfect Camera machines are our eyes (aren't they?) but despite that human beings can appreciate art with such biological cameras.

After all that's been said, I would like to extent my sincerest condolences to all students that participated in Dru's portrait workshops...

Agree!

[eob]

In my opinion, what Mr. Blair doesn't seem to understand is that the way photography works can not be likened to the way painting or sculpting works. Photography is a newer and more technology-savvy discipline of art and therefore should never be practiced (or looked at) the same way as painting and other traditional kinds of visual arts are practiced or evaluated.

Their role in an artistic creativity is to synthesize and add up elements of reality piece by piece until the work of art is complete. In our case, the creative process is exactly opposite. We select and subtract the elements of reality, until we are left only with what matters to get the message across.

Mr. Blair is on the wrong path (at least - artistically). He is an illustrator who uses photography as a source, and then he produces a carbon copy of a source and calls it art. He couldn't be farther from the art. What he's mastered is a craft, not an art. There is nothing original in what he does. He is just trying to mimic photography using completely different set of skills from those necessary to be an artist. It is an ironic twist in that early photographers tried to mimic painting. Now, people like Mr. Blair are trying to create illustrations by mimicking photography.

[ATNO]

Digital art is amazing.  This is not a photograph either http://www.ashundar.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-4535  But sure looks like one.  Nor is this one that I made  http://www.ashundar.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-3410

Sooner or later we're going to have to stop and wonder if anything on the internet is real *grins.