# Amazing drawing, not a photograph!



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-not-photo-16-old-winning-entry-art-120438239.html#PFElV4q

This pencil drawing has been done by a unbelievably talented 16 year old girl in Ireland, she has won the main prize in the art competition it was presented in 4 times.

It is though based on a photograph of a former fisherman, some critics are now saying she is a great draughtsman but not a great artist.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> <snip>
> 
> ... some critics are now saying she is a great draughtsman but not a great artist.



Why do I get the feeling that those critics are just having a whinge because they're jealous that they wouldn't have a hope in hell of being able to draw anything even remotely as good as that picture?


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 18, 2014)

There's some other guy that does it loads better though


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 18, 2014)

Perhaps once the 16 year old girl has honed her talent she'll be even better than 'some other guy'.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2014)

Some don't rate photo realistic art, I know some artists think it is a bit pointless.

Definitely a talent though that 16 year old.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2014)

We have a resident Urban artist, Stanley Edwards , what do you think Stan?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Some don't rate photo realistic art, I know some artists think it is a bit pointless.
> 
> Definitely a talent though that 16 year old.



By that measure, a watercolour of a landscape, or an oil portrait is equally 'a bit pointless' when you could just take a photo. But each unto their own. 

But she is certainly talented - and I wish her all the best for her future.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> By that measure, a watercolour of a landscape, or an oil portrait is equally 'a bit pointless' when you could just take a photo. But each unto their own.



I don't think so, a watercolour, pastel or oil painting does not have to be photo-real. The artist has the choice of how much detail to include. Someone I know paints oils with a pallet knife and lashes lumps of paint onto their canvas concentrating on shape form and texture. Close up their paintings are a jumble of lumps of paint, from slightly further away you can distinguish items but there is no detail, you make that bit up with your imagination.


----------



## T & P (Apr 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Some don't rate photo realistic art, I know some artists think it is a bit pointless.


Not as pointless as, say, a light bulb switching itself on and off at regular intervals in an empty room, which many critics and 'artists' thought a worthy candidate for the Turner Prize.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't think so, a watercolour, pastel or oil painting does not have to be photo-real. The artist has the choice of how much detail to include. Someone I know paints oils with a pallet knife and lashes lumps of paint onto their canvas concentrating on shape form and texture. Close up their paintings are a jumble of lumps of paint, from slightly further away you can distinguish items but there is no detail, you make that bit up with your imagination.



I think you might be missing my point here.  I was criticising those who criticise this type of art as pointless, when the same argument can be made for any other type of art.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I think you might be missing my point here.  I was criticising those who criticise this type of art as pointless, when the same argument can be made for any other type of art.


Oh, sorry, as you were ...


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> Not as pointless, say, as a light bulb switching itself on and off at regular intervals in an empty room, which many critics and 'artists' thought a worthy candidate for the Turner Prize.


Oh, I didn't hear about that one ..
Yes, I didn't understand Tracey Emin's unmade bed either, but that skull encased in diamonds I liked.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Oh, I didn't hear about that one ..
> Yes, I didn't understand Tracey Emin's unmade bed either, but that skull encased in diamonds I liked.



The bed was just stupid in my opinion.  But the skull was great - I'd love to have that (if I had a spare £50m burning a hole in my pocket).


----------



## tendril (Apr 18, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> There's some other guy that does it loads better though


Paul Cadden.   






This ones a watercolour!:


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-not-photo-16-old-winning-entry-art-120438239.html#PFElV4q
> 
> This pencil drawing has been done by a unbelievably talented 16 year old girl in Ireland, she has won the main prize in the art competition it was presented in 4 times.
> 
> It is though based on a photograph of a former fisherman, some critics are now saying she is a great draughtsman but not a great artist.



That's excellent. ..

On the draughtsman comment..I'd look to the meaning.

draughtsman
ˈdrɑːf(t)smən/
_noun_

*1*.
a person who makes detailed technical plans or drawings.
*2*.
an artist skilled in drawing
She certainly is an artist skilled in drawing. I suspect the critics are arty types who like Jackson Pollock and spatter art. (Tongue in cheekily said dont you know)


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> Not as pointless as, say, a light bulb switching itself on and off at regular intervals in an empty room, which many critics and 'artists' thought a worthy candidate for the Turner Prize.



That's what I don't like hate about the art world... Nobody has the balls to stand up and say "Hang on a minute. That's fucking shite!". Instead you you get all the sheeple agreeing that it's ace, and trying to explain to mere mortals (who couldn't give a flying fuck) how the contrast in light and dark signify the light and the dark sides of the force, or some other such bollox... fookin' baggashite


----------



## tendril (Apr 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That's what I don't like hate about the art world... Nobody has the balls to stand up and say "Hang on a minute. That's fucking shite!". Instead you you get all the sheeple agreeing that it's ace, and trying to explain to mere mortals (who couldn't give a flying fuck) how the contrast in light and dark signify the light and the dark sides of the force, or some other such bollox... fookin' baggashite


I don't know much about art but I know what I like...........


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

Anyone who has ever tried to make art in a photorealistic style knows how difficult it is to paint or draw this way.  

Here's a few more great photorealistic paintings.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/works-of-art-you-wont-believe-arent-photographs?s=mobile


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 18, 2014)

tendril said:


> Paul Cadden.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's him. It does make me wonder, is it art? It's just a really accurate still life. It is incredibly skilful, but also rather meh


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 18, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> Perhaps once the 16 year old girl has honed her talent she'll be even better than 'some other guy'.


I hope so. It wasn't meant to sound mean btw.


----------



## tendril (Apr 18, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> That's him. It does make me wonder, is it art? It's just a really accurate still life. It is incredibly skilful, but also rather meh


I would say that in the accepted dictionary definition of the word then absolutely yes.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 18, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That's what I don't like hate about the art world... Nobody has the balls to stand up and say "Hang on a minute. That's fucking shite!". Instead you you get all the sheeple agreeing that it's ace, and trying to explain to mere mortals (who couldn't give a flying fuck) how the contrast in light and dark signify the light and the dark sides of the force, or some other such bollox... fookin' baggashite



I find that people who have made this assessment of the art world haven't really had much experience with it tbh, as there is _plenty_ of negative feedback on just about every artist who shows, and everyone's entitled to their own opinions and tastes, and also why shouldn't people talk about what makes something a good piece of art, just as they talk about what makes a good film, or music, or baseball player?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 18, 2014)

Kelvin Okafor is pretty good too.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 18, 2014)

tendril said:


> I would say that in the accepted dictionary definition of the word then absolutely yes.


Ok  It is art. Doesn't do anything for me though, beyond technical admiration. Meh.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 18, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> Perhaps once the 16 year old girl has honed her talent she'll be even better than 'some other guy'.



Yeah she'll be amazing by the time she reaches the ages of Cadden and Okafor. She's amazing now tbf!


----------



## tendril (Apr 18, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I find that people who have made this assessment of the art world haven't really had much experience with it tbh, as there is _plenty_ of negative feedback on just about every artist who shows, and everyone's entitled to their own opinions and tastes, and also why shouldn't people talk about what makes something a good piece of art, just as they talk about what makes a good film, or music, or baseball player?


A lot of the time though it is about the money. I just love the opening scene of Vincent & Theo. The whole juxtaposition between the auction for millions and the artist laying in squalor.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> That's him. It does make me wonder, is it art? It's just a really accurate still life. It is incredibly skilful, but also rather meh



I think if Tracy Emin had squashed some bed bugs into the image of a walrus on her "dirty sheets and all" I'd have possibly thought "yup there's some artistic slant there that I can relate to". But as she didnt, I am left feeling that the Turner prize that year went to a bed with dirty sheets, and that is very meh..


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 18, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> I hope so. It wasn't meant to sound mean btw.


Didn't take it that way.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Why do I get the feeling that those critics are just having a whinge because they're jealous that they wouldn't have a hope in hell of being able to draw anything even remotely as good as that picture?


 
Because people confuse art and photography (which can be art, but does not have to be - whole 'nother thread, bindun etc.).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 18, 2014)

Draughtsman my arse. If she can draw that from a photo, she can draw it from life. An awesome talent.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Draughtsman my arse. If she can draw that from a photo, she can draw it from life.


 how does that follow?

I have a mate who does stuff like this in biro. It just takes time and practice.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> how does that follow?
> 
> I have a mate who does stuff like this in biro. It just takes time and practice.



Yep. And a subject. If you can create that from a photo, you can create it from a live subject. Anyway, which ever way up, an amazing talent. As has your mate if he can do similar.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

He can. I'll see if theres any online once I get to a computer. You're wrong though, if you can copy that kind of detail from a photo you cant necessarily do it from a live subject. Different skills.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 18, 2014)

it's incredibly impressive - i couldn't do it.  And what makes an artist... well it's only just developing by the age of 16.  We can't expect children to be artists.  She may well become a great artist.  This isn't her art, though.

The art in this image was almost wholly created by the original photographer.  The choice of subject, composition, lighting, contrast, resolution...  the original photograph is art.  This is highly, highly skilled imitation.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm afraid I would not agree that it's not art because she copied from a photograph.
She has amazing talent. The majority of artists use photography as a tool all the time.
The majority of portrait and lanscape artists will paint from both.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 18, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> it's incredibly impressive - i couldn't do it.  And what makes an artist... well it's only just developing by the age of 16.  We can't expect children to be artists.  She may well become a great artist.  This isn't her art, though.
> 
> The art in this image was almost wholly created by the original photographer.  The choice of subject, composition, lighting, contrast, resolution...  the original photograph is art.  This is highly, highly skilled imitation.


Yeah. It's a great achievement, but it's a bit like building the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks.

A guy drew Vermeer's "Girl With A Pearl Earring" using one Bic biro - http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=26262 - I saw it in the Museum Of Brands in a sponsored exhibit they had about Bic. That was really good as well (and points out that a biro is a better drawing tool than one might think). But it wasn't Vermeer.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

Also, we  dont have the original photo but I'd say looking at her art work that she has done an incredible job of drawing fine detail.


----------



## Cid (Apr 18, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yep. And a subject. If you can create that from a photo, you can create it from a live subject. .



Balls.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah. It's a great achievement, but it's a bit like building the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks.
> 
> A guy drew Vermeer's "Girl With A Pearl Earring" using one Bic biro - http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=26262 - I saw it in the Museum Of Brands in a sponsored exhibit they had about Bic. That was really good as well (and points out that a biro is a better drawing tool than one might think). But it wasn't Vermeer.



A good copy, and I certainly couldn't do that.  But the best bit about the video was the Take Art music.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 18, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> A good copy, and I certainly couldn't do that.  But the best bit about the video was the Take Art music.


A generation growing up will not understand that


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A generation growing up will not understand that



That is sad isn't it?  I absolutely loved that programme and of course, Morph.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 18, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> That is sad isn't it?  I absolutely loved that programme and of course, Morph.


I admit that I always changed channels when the Gallery came on. I only watched it for Morph.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I admit that I always changed channels when the Gallery came on. I only watched it for Morph.



I liked to watch it to see what shite the kids had sent in that week.  Not that I'm any good at art, but it was still mostly shite.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

This thread needs his picture!


----------



## Cid (Apr 18, 2014)

You know he got kickstarted?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 18, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> it's incredibly impressive - i couldn't do it.  And what makes an artist... well it's only just developing by the age of 16.  We can't expect children to be artists.  She may well become a great artist.  This isn't her art, though.
> 
> The art in this image was almost wholly created by the original photographer.  The choice of subject, composition, lighting, contrast, resolution...  the original photograph is art.  This is highly, highly skilled imitation.



I agree that the photographer made all the choices on the original composition as you say, but isn't someone who can play Mozart beautifully considered an artist even though they didn't write the music?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 18, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I liked to watch it to see what shite the kids had sent in that week.  Not that I'm any good at art, but it was still mostly shite.


That was the main thing. I didn't have any artistic pretensions at that age but I'd watch it and think "seriously? wtf is this? why do I want to watch what children who can't draw have sent in? _where is Morph?_"


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 18, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I agree that the photographer made all the choices on the original composition as you say, but isn't someone who can play Mozart beautifully considered an artist even though they didn't write the music?


I'm not a musician, but in acting and singing the artistry comes from how you interpret the material.  Your own creative edge that makes what you do different to any other actor/singer given the same material.  I'd guess the same is true of a pianist. 

But I'm sure it's possible to play a technically perfect rendition of Mozart without any artistic interpretation, and that wouldn't be art - just as you can recite all Hamlet's lines in all the right places, but not be an artist of the acting discipline.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

Cid said:


> Balls.



Art ...the kind that is representational and realistic, is all about seeing. In the past artists were trained to see every detail of an object or setting. They learned to choose relevant parts, include and exclude bits...and piece together a picture.
This girl has done that. The only difference is that what she is seeing is immobile..and of course she can take her time because her subject is not going to move.

I think she is very talented.


----------



## Cid (Apr 18, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Art ...the kind that is representational and realistic, is all about seeing. In the past artists were trained to see every detail of an object or setting. They learned to choose relevant parts, include and exclude bits...and piece together a picture.
> This girl has done that. The only difference is that what she is seeing is immobile..and of course she can take her time because her subject is not going to move.
> 
> I think she is very talented.



I said nothing about her talent, just that the idea that she could draw something similar from life is balls.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> I'm not a musician, but in acting and singing the artistry comes from how you interpret the material.  Your own creative edge that makes what you do different to any other actor/singer given the same material.  I'd guess the same is true of a pianist.
> 
> But I'm sure it's possible to play a technically perfect rendition of Mozart without any artistic interpretation, and that wouldn't be art - just as you can recite all Hamlet's lines in all the right places, but not be an artist of the acting discipline.



But she has interpreted it ...in her use of materials.
She has chosen pencil. She could have used charcoal or black ink or gouache... She chose the quality of paper ... probably fine grade ..she could have used rougher textured paper.

What she has done is exceptionally difficult. Not many could draw that face and  pull you in to the subject's eyes. 
It takes artistic talent to draw or paint from a photograph.  For all we know she may have infused more character into that face than the photographer captured.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 18, 2014)

Art is not just about seeing.

Art, any art, is about creating something which has an emotional communication with its audience. Something that changes the audience.  What it wants to communicate and how you do it is the creative journey for the artist.  Who the audience is is also a set of choices - some artists work for their own reaction: it's a communication with themselves.  Other art is interested in how an audience reacts when they don't know they're an audience.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah. It's a great achievement, but it's a bit like building the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks.
> 
> A guy drew Vermeer's "Girl With A Pearl Earring" using one Bic biro - http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=26262 - I saw it in the Museum Of Brands in a sponsored exhibit they had about Bic. That was really good as well (and points out that a biro is a better drawing tool than one might think). But it wasn't Vermeer.


yeah, this is the kind of crap my mate does. And it is crap. Impressive crap, but crap nonetheless.

I dont see the point in asking if something is art or not though. It is art. It's just not art that interests me much.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 18, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> But she has interpreted it ...in her use of materials.
> She has chosen pencil. She could have used charcoal or black ink or gouache... She chose the quality of paper ... probably fine grade ..she could have used rougher textured paper.
> 
> What she has done is exceptionally difficult. Not many could draw that face and  pull you in to the subject's eyes.
> It takes artistic talent to draw or paint from a photograph.  For all we know she may have infused more character into that face than the photographer captured.


yes, she has made some interpretations, I agree.  and no one has said that what she's done is anything other than incredibly, shockingly talented.  

To really understand how far the art is hers, you'd need to see the original photograph.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> yes, she has made some interpretations, I agree.  and no one has said that what she's done is anything other than incredibly, shockingly talented.
> 
> To really understand how far the art is hers, you'd need to see the original photograph.



Exactly...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> yeah, this is the kind of crap my mate does. And it is crap. Impressive crap, but crap nonetheless.
> 
> I dont see the point in asking if something is art or not though. It is art. It's just not art that interests me much.


Yeah, "is this art?" is a facile question. "Is this interesting?" is much more useful.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yeah, "is this art?" is a facile question. "Is this interesting?" is much more useful.



I agree.  Everyone has a different view (as has been shown on this thread alone),  but it really boils down to whether whatever it is interests the person viewing it.  For me, I think the pencil drawing is great.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 18, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> I agree that the photographer made all the choices on the original composition as you say, but isn't someone who can play Mozart beautifully considered an artist even though they didn't write the music?



Even then though the photographer had an interesting subject. The interest in the image results from the man's lines, wrinkles,  fine hairs ...in other words his life is in his face. Yes, the photographer took that image but I doubt they manipulated it much or altered it. I'd say the image is an accurate representation of the old man.
The young girl has caught the man's personality ... she has maintained the authenticity of the old man's face and the photographer's image.


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Even then though the photographer had an interesting subject. The interest in the image results from the man's lines, wrinkles,  fine hairs ...in other words his life is in his face. Yes, the photographer took that image but I doubt they manipulated it much or altered it. I'd say the image is an accurate representation of the old man.
> The young girl has caught the man's personality ... she has maintained the authenticity of the old man's face and the photographer's image.



High contrast photographs of wrinkled old men with experience behind their eyes is basically a genre of its own. The photograph is from a book/project called Vanishing Ireland (annoyingly the Coleman picture isn't on the site), as are some of her previous works. She's clearly talented, but the photographer is the one that's gone out there, spoken to these people, tried to work out what they're like, listened to their stories and finally captured a set of images and selected one that he thinks best sums them up. She might have added some contrast, or some detail, but fundamentally it is a copy. She has a really strong base to build from, and I hope she goes on to do some great work - she's only 16 after all.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 19, 2014)

Might as well take a photo. There's no interpretation, no meaning. Just dull technicality. Bit like them virtuoso guitar solo wankers like Yngiwie Mamstein (sp?)


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Balls.



What a wonderfully reasoned argument, absolutely studded with examples proving your point. Well, perhaps. In actuality, the response is indeed self descriptive.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 19, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Might as well take a photo. There's no interpretation, no meaning. Just dull technicality. Bit like them virtuoso guitar solo wankers like Yngiwie Mamstein (sp?)



Still a talent just the same. Can you do it? I certainly can't.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 19, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Even then though the photographer had an interesting subject. The interest in the image results from the man's lines, wrinkles,  fine hairs ...in other words his life is in his face. Yes, the photographer took that image but I doubt they manipulated it much or altered it. I'd say the image is an accurate representation of the old man.
> The young girl has caught the man's personality ... she has maintained the authenticity of the old man's face and the photographer's image.



Indeed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> I said nothing about her talent, just that the idea that she could draw something similar from life is balls.



She would probably do what all portrait painters do, take a few photographs...


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> She would probably do what all portrait painters do, take a few photographs...


but there's a fundamental difference between an artist taking a photo and using that for their portrait, and someone taking another artist's photo and using that for their portrait.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> She would probably do what all portrait painters do, take a few photographs...



Not really, a good porrtait artist will sit with their subject for hours, talk with them, observe tiny fluctuations, mood changes and changes of light and they will get to know something of their personality. The final piece will be something unique; their own personal interpretation of their encounter. Sitting in front of an actual person and a blank canvas is very different from sitting in front of a cold two dimensional photograph.

I'm sure this girl has the potential to be a very talented artist, but this picture merely shows she can copy other people's pictures.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2014)

To be absolutely fair, I haven't seen the original photograph, so judging artistic merit vs. very good drawing skills isn't really possible here - I'd guess some of the critics commenting may have done.
This basic story comes around every so often, and has been repeated on and off pretty much since the advent of mass photography. 

Plays well the the Daily Mail crowd, I'd imagine it would have been running some version of this in Picasso's heyday.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

What about that jack vettriano eh?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2014)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 19, 2014)

If she'd taken a photograph of a building and redrawn it in pencil, would she be an artist?
If the building had something by Banksy on it, would she still be an artist?

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Still a talent just the same. Can you do it? I certainly can't.



I.cant


Sasaferrato said:


> Still a talent just the same. Can you do it? I certainly can't.



I can't play guitar like Mamstein either. I still don't like it.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> If she'd taken a photograph of a building and redrawn it in pencil, would she be an artist?
> If the building had something by Banksy on it, would she still be an artist?
> 
> Where do you draw the line?


If she took the photo, that would be a good start.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 19, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> If she took the photo, that would be a good start.


What if the photo only contained the work by Banksy... Would she be an artist or would she just be copying someone elses art?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What if the photo only contained the work by Banksy... Would she be an artist or would she just be copying someone elses art?


Too many variables.  Couldn't say.  Potentially could be art.  Potentially not.  Depends on how similar the final piece is to banksy's original work.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 19, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Too many variables.  Couldn't say.  Potentially could be art.  Potentially not.  Depends on how similar the final piece is to banksy's original work.


What if she'd taken a photograph of a famous building and reproduced it in pencil. Would she be the artist or would the architect who designed the building be the artist, or would the people who built it be the artists?
Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I think she's a great artist.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

You draw the line on what you consider art, Dr_Herbz . Thats one of the wonderful things about it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 19, 2014)

To be so capable at such a young age is incredible IMO, very impressive


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What if she'd taken a photograph of a famous building and reproduced it in pencil. Would she be the artist or would the architect who designed the building be the artist, or would the people who built it be the artists?
> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> Personally, I think she's a great artist.


She'd be the artist.  However if she did a drawing of a fantastic bit of art photography that another artist had created by photographing a building, and she copied that photo in every essential element - all the things that made it a great photo were just transposed to her drawing...  Then, for me, to call her a great artist is to deny the artistry of the original photographer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

It's a very expressive face. There is art in there, most certainly - in the drawing and, if it's from a photograph, the photography. I'm not so bothered how it was produced - it's very expressive. 

Where is it said that this is a copy of someone else's photo?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> how does that follow?
> 
> I have a mate who does stuff like this in biro. It just takes time and practice.


I also know someone who can do this kind of thing. It's not so rare, if she has taken a straight copy from a photo.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where is it said that this is a copy of someone else's photo?





> She saw a photograph of the man in the Vanishing Ireland book and drew a close-up facial study in pencil with such detail that it is hard to believe it’s not a photograph.



From The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/a...-texaco-art-prize-for-mayo-teenager-1.1762980


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Not really, a good porrtait artist will sit with their subject for hours, talk with them, observe tiny fluctuations, mood changes and changes of light and they will get to know something of their personality. The final piece will be something unique; their own personal interpretation of their encounter. Sitting in front of an actual person and a blank canvas is very different from sitting in front of a cold two dimensional photograph.
> 
> I'm sure this girl has the potential to be a very talented artist, but this picture merely shows she can copy other people's pictures.



Yep that... And where photographs are used they serve as an aid, getting a particular quality of light, facial expression, detail etc.



Dr_Herbz said:


> What if she'd taken a photograph of a famous building and reproduced it in pencil. Would she be the artist or would the architect who designed the building be the artist, or would the people who built it be the artists?
> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> Personally, I think she's a great artist.



As others on this thread have said it's about interpretation... What is your work trying to express. It's less about what is technically good and more about what makes something interesting. In this case there's a lot that's interesting about the image, but that isn't hers. All she has put into it is the ability to transfer it from one medium to another.



littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a very expressive face. There is art in there, most certainly - in the drawing and, if it's from a photograph, the photography. I'm not so bothered how it was produced - it's very expressive.
> 
> Where is it said that this is a copy of someone else's photo?



It's one of the articles, I linked to the book it's from in post 59. Although since I still have it open, it's here. e2a: ah, fishfingers linked to it. Collaboration between a historian and a photographer going round Ireland recording stories and images... It's an interesting project that they've clearly put an enormous amount of work into, and that is entirely where the interest in this picture has come from. The image comes from getting to know the subject, being interested by them and their story and recording it. What she has done is move it to another medium. She's seen a picture in a book that she likes and copied it. There is a lot of skill in there; I imagine she's had to enlarge it extrapolate some of the details etc, but afaik she's never even met the subject.

To draw a slight analogy, I make very good furniture... I design my own stuff and occasionally make other people's. If a client gives me a drawing of a really interesting piece they want made, I have to do a lot of work interpreting it. I need to choose the wood, visualise the drawing in three dimensions, scale the drawing, think about how details can be made effectively, work out appropriate finishes, work out what joints are needed. Any number of factors that might not have crossed the mind of the person who drew it. However it is fundamentally not my design. I don't think many would disagree with that, I'm making someone else's design for them. I could make a copy of a Henry Moore sculpture in wood... It would have some interesting elements to it (how does the grain work, what are the joints like etc), but it would be a copy of a Henry Moore sculpture in wood. I don't see how this type of art can do anything more than that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Good post Cid. Agree entirely - most of the credit here ought to go to the photographer.

She's only 16, mind. I don't want to be too hard! But the comments about her being the talent of her generation etc are a bit silly.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> To draw a slight analogy, I make very good furniture... I design my own stuff and occasionally make other people's. If a client gives me a drawing of a really interesting piece they want made, I have to do a lot of work interpreting it. I need to choose the wood, visualise the drawing in three dimensions, scale the drawing, think about how details can be made effectively, work out appropriate finishes, work out what joints are needed. Any number of factors that might not have crossed the mind of the person who drew it. However it is fundamentally not my design. I don't think many would disagree with that, I'm making someone else's design for them. I could make a copy of a Henry Moore sculpture in wood... It would have some interesting elements to it (how does the grain work, what are the joints like etc), but it would be a copy of a Henry Moore sculpture in wood. I don't see how this type of art can do anything more than that.



Which is like someone taking a photograph of the Eiffel tower. They didn't design it or build it but they're taking credit for the photographic art. Granted, they chose the angle, crop, etc, just as you choose the wood, the grain, what stain to use, etc, so surely you're as much an artist (when you build somebody elses design) as the photographer who photographs a nice piece of architecture?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Which is like someone taking a photograph of the Eiffel tower. They didn't design it or build it but they're taking credit for the photographic art. Granted, they chose the angle, crop, etc, just as you choose the wood, the grain, what stain to use, etc, so surely you're as much an artist (when you build somebody elses design) as the photographer who photographs a nice piece of architecture?



OK, let's take another example. Alberto Korda's famous photo of Che Guevara. Now Che was ridiculously photogenic - I haven't seen a bad photo of him - but nonetheless, Korda captured a moment in that photo that summed up a great deal about Che and what he meant to people. A perfect copy of that photo in pencil drawing cannot take any of the credit for the capturing of the moment. In fact, it's hard to see what it adds that isn't already there in the original photo.

Same thing applies here. The moment was captured by the photographer, quite probably after quite a deal of effort. Most of the expressiveness of the drawing comes from that capturing of the moment.


----------



## Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Which is like someone taking a photograph of the Eiffel tower. They didn't design it or build it but they're taking credit for the photographic art. Granted, they chose the angle, crop, etc, just as you choose the wood, the grain, what stain to use, etc, so surely you're as much an artist (when you build somebody elses design) as the photographer who photographs a nice piece of architecture?



Or they're no more an artist than I am. Which is how I'd tend to think of it... It really depends on the photographer and the actual image of course, photography being that favourite of the 'but is it _art_?' debate. Descriptive photos of buildings I'd probably err on the side of not art though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> She'd be the artist.  However if she did a drawing of a fantastic bit of art photography that another artist had created by photographing a building, and she copied that photo in every essential element - all the things that made it a great photo were just transposed to her drawing...  Then, for me, to call her a great artist is to deny the artistry of the original photographer.



Actuallt by your logic the only artist in your example would be the architect of the building.
In art nothing is original. Not really. So I would always see the artists fingerprint every step of the way in the creation of any work of art.
What she produced is a work of art related to another work of art.
Neither is better or worse. They are just different.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Or they're no more an artist than I am. Which is how I'd tend to think of it... It really depends on the photographer and the actual image of course, photography being that favourite of the 'but is it _art_?' debate. Descriptive photos of buildings I'd probably err on the side of not art though.


Or just art that isn't that great. Architectural photography as a genre is surprisingly tricky to produce anything really outstanding in. It's all very well taking impressive-looking pictures of interiors and exteriors - they're meant to be impressive to look at after all - but to get something with a spark to it, something unusual and telling, that's hard.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

(Artist; Plural: artists) as follows:


A person who creates art.
A person who creates art as an occupation.
A person who is skilled at some activity.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the older broad meanings of the term "artist":


A learned person or Master of Arts
One who pursues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy,chemistry
A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice
A follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic
One who makes their craft a fine art
One who cultivates one of the fine arts – traditionally the arts presided over by themuses
A definition of Artist from Princeton.edu: creative person (a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination)

By definition she's an artist.
Anyone who knows what it is like to draw photo realistically (always from photos btw) will see the skill and talent she has exhibited. 
She has placed marks, scratches, erased elements on a page to form a face....she's done so with excellent technique and great sensitivity to the subject. I've no doubt she will go on to be a great artist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Ah, dictionary definitions. Always the way to win an argument.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2014)

Jesus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Some don't rate photo realistic art, I know some artists think it is a bit pointless.



Which is quite amusing when you consider that one of the methods that used to be used for photo-realism was pointillism.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

Andy warhol famously copied a tin. It looked real. The original is lauded as a serious work of art. Yet he didnt design the label on the tin...or bake the beans.
He reproduced an image.
This is what she has done. It makes not a blind bit of difference that she didnt photograph the old man herself. She used the photo just as Warhol used the tin.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Actuallt by your logic the only artist in your example would be the architect of the building.
> In art nothing is original. Not really. So I would always see the artists fingerprint every step of the way in the creation of any work of art.
> What she produced is a work of art related to another work of art.
> Neither is better or worse. They are just different.


that's not my logic at all.	But I think i'll put you on ignore, because I'm back at work next week and I don't have the time to pander to your... unique style of discussion. Have fun.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, dictionary definitions. Always the way to win an argument.



Win??
An argument about art???
Lol


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Andy warhol famously copied a tin. It looked real. The original is lauded as a serious work of art. Yet he didnt design the label on the tin...or bake the beans.
> He reproduced an image.
> This is what she has done. It makes not a blind bit of difference that she didnt photograph the old man herself. She used the photo just as Warhol used the tin.


No she didn't.

You're one of those odd posters who's wrong about everything, aren't you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Win??
> An argument about art???
> Lol


Did you think there were posters here struggling with the word 'art'? If not, why the fuck post up some dictionary definition.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> that's not my logic at all.	But I think i'll put you on ignore, because I'm back at work next week and I don't have the time to pander to your... unique style of discussion. Have fun.



Thanks....I will do my best.
Enjoy work next week.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No she didn't.
> 
> You're one of those odd posters who's wrong about everything, aren't you?


Why dont you read my post ?
I said she "reproduced an image"
That is exactly what she did.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did you think there were posters here struggling with the word 'art'? If not, why the fuck post up some dictionary definition.



Because some were deciding what an artist is by proxy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why dont you read my post ?
> I said she "reproduced an image"
> That is exactly what she did.


Why don't you read your post? You said 'she used the photo just as Warhol used the tin'. Which she didn't. 

Anyway, I'm going to follow Spanglechick's very sensible lead. Bye.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why don't you read your post? You said 'she used the photo just as Warhol used the tin'. Which she didn't.
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to follow Spanglechick's very sensible lead. Bye.



She used an image.
Warhol used the art work on a label produced by some poor artist...and he reproduced it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 19, 2014)

Did you have Paint By Numbers over there?







http://www.collectorsquest.com/blog/2008/07/07/the-why-of-collecting-paint-by-numbers/

Some pretty good results are possible.











Are the people who recreate famous works of art via paint by numbers, artists?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Did you have Paint By Numbers over there?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no comparison between her photorealitic drawing and paint by numbers art.
But now that you mention it there are wide variations in the results achieved using a paint by numbers kit. I'd say they're good for learners.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are the people who recreate famous works of art via paint by numbers, artists?



I wouldn't be so harsh on this girl as to compare her work to paint by numbers.  Recreating the image in a photo in a drawing in such tremendous detail shows great skill and (probably) no little empathy for the expression captured in the photo. She will have known that face intimately by the end of the process.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 19, 2014)

Often people who do these photorealistic paintings create templates from the photo or whatever it is they're copying.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 19, 2014)

TE="littlebabyjesus, post: 13079943, member: 32628"]I wouldn't be so harsh on this girl as to compare her work to paint by numbers.  Recreating the image in a photo in a drawing in such tremendous detail shows great skill and (probably) no little empathy for the expression captured in the photo. She will have known that face intimately by the end of the process.[/QUOTE]

Not trying to be harsh. The girl has a skill that I don't possess. But the discussion seems to be about when someone is an artist. People of different skill levels will get paint-by-numbers reproductions of van Gogh, for instance, that are closer, or further away from the original. Someone mentioned musicians who are able to reproduce Mozart. Often they do it by reading sheet music.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Often people who do these photorealistic paintings create templates from the photo or whatever it is they're copying.


I draw like a small child (not in a good way), but I remember doing exercises using a grid to copy images. I think it can teach you a great deal about drawing. I think the problem here is not the drawing itself, which is perfectly laudable, but the rather silly praise that has been heaped on it. That's not the girl's fault at all, though. To her, I would just say very well done.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I draw like a small child (not in a good way), but I remember doing exercises using a grid to copy images. I think it can teach you a great deal about drawing. I think the problem here is not the drawing itself, which is perfectly laudable, but the rather silly praise that has been heaped on it. That's not the girl's fault at all, though. To her, I would just say very well done.



Plus, if she has this sort of copying skill now, she will likely produce very nice art when she finds her own vision.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not trying to be harsh. The girl has a skill that I don't possess. But the discussion seems to be about when someone is an artist. People of different skill levels will get paint-by-numbers reproductions of van Gogh, for instance, that are closer, or further away from the original. Someone mentioned musicians who are able to reproduce Mozart. Often they do it by reading sheet music.


 Well the comparison with music strikes me as a slightly odd one. When you play a piece of music well, you're not just reproducing it. You're feeling it, too. You're understanding it. Perhaps the same can be said here, that this girl has understood the expression and emotion in the photo and successfully copied it. I would simply wonder what she has added to the original.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 19, 2014)

Some of the most famous artists throughout history had their students paint large portions of paintings and then the artist came along and put the final finish and signature to it.
I'm not sure where the discussion is going but getting back to the op...this girl has a talent and has reproduced an image in a highly skilled way. She has captured the personality of the old man...which is difficult from life or a photo.
I'd call her an artist and her work art.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Plus, if she has this sort of copying skill now, she will likely produce very nice art when she finds her own vision.


Yes. I think so too. And she's probably learned a great deal from the process of making this drawing.

She might stick to photorealism for good. There have been very successful artists painting like that. It's not my bag, but that's fine.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> We have a resident Urban artist, Stanley Edwards , what do you think Stan?


 
I think it is an extreme talent and if it is presented as art then it should be viewed as art, but I don't see the point. Art for me has to express the personality of the artist. Good photographic portraits often reflect as much about the photographer as the subject - photographic portraits can be instantly recognised by the photographers name. I can't see the artista in this portrait. Technically brilliant, artistically lacking expression.


----------



## felixthecat (Apr 20, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I think it is an extreme talent and if it is presented as art then it should be viewed as art, but I don't see the point. Art for me has to express the personality of the artist. Good photographic portraits often reflect as much about the photographer as the subject - photographic portraits can be instantly recognised by the photographers name. I can't see the artista in this portrait. Technically brilliant, artistically lacking expression.


For once I agree with Stanley. She an awesome draughtsman who may develop into a great artist. She's young, she's still building her own personality and experiences. But she's got the solid building blocks to develop her own style. Look at the drawings Picasso did at her age  - and that's a man who was  fine draughtsman at a young age and developed into a great artist.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 20, 2014)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I think it is an extreme talent and if _it is presented as art then it should be viewed as art.._.


 
The Grayson Perry argument. 

I think it's one of the better arguments, actually.  Unless you've seen the original photograph, though, which I think most of us on this thread haven't, then judging artistic expression isn't possible.  She may have caught something in the expression of the sitter from a fairly lacklustre photograph, for instance.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 20, 2014)

felixthecat said:


> Look at the drawings Picasso did at her age  - and that's a man who was  fine draughtsman who developed into a great artist.


 
And who the Daily Mail crowd will berate for 'not being able to draw'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 20, 2014)

My ex-boss left his job to pursue his dreams of becoming a professional artist (his wife earns shitloads), but all he did was paintings of famous photographs of musicians and footballers. No one had the heart to tell him that he was rubbish though.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> My ex-boss left his job to pursue his dreams of becoming a professional artist (his wife earns shitloads), but all he did was paintings of famous photographs of musicians and footballers. No one had the heart to tell him that he was rubbish though.


He should probably have shat in a jar and placed it on a milking stool in the Tate... he'd be a millionaire.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> He should probably have shat in a jar and placed it on a milking stool in the Tate... he'd be a millionaire.


It does interest me, the artists that make it big time. Or photographers for that matter.
They seem to have a real talent for self promotion, for marketing themselves.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2014)

Wow dr herbz. them sacred cows better watch out with you about.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It does interest me, the artists that make it big time. Or photographers for that matter.
> They seem to have a real talent for self promotion, for marketing themselves.


The emperor's new clothes... If you convince enough people your art is good, you've cracked it.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> Wow dr herbz. them sacred cows better watch out with you about.


eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 20, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Andy warhol famously copied a tin. It looked real. The original is lauded as a serious work of art. Yet he didnt design the label on the tin...or bake the beans.
> He reproduced an image.
> This is what she has done. It makes not a blind bit of difference that she didnt photograph the old man herself. She used the photo just as Warhol used the tin.



Yeah, but Warhol was commenting on the nature of art in a consumerist society where faithful reproduction was becoming easier and easier.

To understand art, you need to understand the historical context.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, but Warhol was commenting on the nature of art in a consumerist society where faithful reproduction was becoming easier and easier.
> 
> To understand art, you need to understand the historical context.


Yep. Which isn't the same as saying that you have to like it or consider it great or important. You don't.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2014)

I recall a tv program where various kids paintings were professionally framed and exhibited as if they were adult's works. Some of the critics were glowing in their praise without realising they were kid's works.

A local gallery owner once asked me to bring in some of my photography abstracts in case they might sell. I regret I didn't take the opportunity. To me they are beautiful, perhaps some others might agree.

But I have never understood how commercial art works. Obviously there are the outstanding oddities, Emin's unmade bed, or for that matter her tent, the pickled shark, the room full of ceramic seeds, etc ... and then there is Banksy!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, but Warhol was commenting on the nature of art in a consumerist society where faithful reproduction was becoming easier and easier.
> 
> To understand art, you need to understand the historical context.



Warhol was a unique character whose lifestyle and personality somewhat over shadowed his art. He was a brilliant networker with connections in many spheres of the artistic and music world.
I can respect his work and do appreciate it. However I also think that the "cult of personality" was very much part of his success.

I'd go so far as to say that current art trends rely on the artist's persona being "unique" or "uniquely different". Artists now have to explain their work in terms of philosophy, psychology, occasionally historically and there can be tremendous accolades given to artwork that is, to the observer in essence, quite sparse and devoid of implicit meaning.
The thing I dislike about this, is the idea that if you dont grasp the "artist's meaning", that you're in some way a bit ignorant about art.

I love art galleries. I'm a member of the Saatchi online gallery. So I always look at art with an open mind. However,  if I find that the artist has to explain a piece, I'm automatically put off. I remember seeing an abstract painting by a well known RHA artist a few years ago. A mass of darkness in the centre with dirty dark colours all around it. I can distinctly recall people ooing and aaaing. Yet nobody had spotted that the drips of paint were flowing up the painting. I asked the gallery owner if he was sure he'd hung the painting properly. He got a tad annoyed and went on the defensive and started talking about the artist and his colour palate and his dark soul... So I decided to contact the artist as I knew his daughter and had met him a good few times. He phoned the gallery and the painting was hung correctly.

My point, although long winded, is that people will admire what is presented as art because they think they should or it's fashionable.

A lot of bullshit goes on in the art world. If an artist can create a serious art persona, forge links with the "right" people, be prepared to imbue artwork with meaning (after the painting is finished) then they'll have a chance of making it, in the current climate.

Cynical?
Possibly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

double post


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Andy warhol famously copied a tin. It looked real. The original is lauded as a serious work of art. Yet he didnt design the label on the tin...or bake the beans.
> He reproduced an image.



He didn't "copy" a tin, and he didn't do it photorealistically.  he painted a representation of a soup tin that was accurate enough for people to recognise it. He didn't "reproduce" it, he interpreted it (he also deliberately set out to use a ubiquitous image as the basis of his art).
Unless, of course, you're claiming that Campbells actually labelled tins of their soup with labels identical to Warhol's colour series of screenprints? 



> This is what she has done. It makes not a blind bit of difference that she didnt photograph the old man herself. She used the photo just as Warhol used the tin.



Not really.  Although I consider what she's done to be art rather than draughtsmanship, and representation rather than reproduction, the distance between representation and reproduction in her picture is a fair bit narrower than with regard to Warhol's soup can.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He didn't "copy" a tin, and he didn't do it photorealistically.  he painted a representation of a soup tin that was accurate enough for people to recognise it. He didn't "reproduce" it, he interpreted it.
> Unless, of course, you're claiming that Campbells actually labelled tins of their soup with labels identical to Warhol's colour series?
> .



Well to be honest the girl's drawing is not totally realistic either is it? It's very obviously a representation of an old man's face...but I doubt the man actually looks like that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> He should probably have shat in a jar and placed it on a milking stool in the Tate... he'd be a millionaire.



Packaged shit is like, 1930s, maaan.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well to be honest the girl's drawing is not totally realistic either is it? It's very obviously a representation of an old man's face...but I doubt the man actually looks like that.



Hmmm, I'd disagree.  Many older faces have that sort of detail, especially if you've spent a lot of time outdoors.  As the original pic was a portrait in a book, then I've no issue with the reproduction not being "faithful" - most half-way interesting portrait photographers tend to go for character, even if the "character" in this case is pores, wrinkles and crinkles.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Packaged shit is like, 1930s, maaan.


Yeah but a stool on a stool would be something for the art critics to work themselves into a frenzied stupor over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> Wow dr herbz. them sacred cows better watch out with you about.



You reckon he might cut one in half and stick it in a tank of formaldehyde?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Packaged shit is like, 1930s, maaan.



Yeah...but art is cyclical innit...






I looked up the Warhol tomato soup...thinking I'd get into a discussion. .. but after looking at it I'm feeling hungry. So I'm off to find a tin of tomato soup...probably Heinz.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yeah but a stool on a stool would be something for the art critics to work themselves into a frenzied stupor over.



Taking a dump between a pair of barstools would be better. A stool that had fallen between two stools would be even more open to critical interpretation.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmmm, I'd disagree.  Many older faces have that sort of detail, especially if you've spent a lot of time outdoors.  As the original pic was a portrait in a book, then I've no issue with the reproduction not being "faithful" - most half-way interesting portrait photographers tend to go for character, even if the "character" in this case is pores, wrinkles and crinkles.



Possibly but if I saw anyone that colour I'd be calling for a doctor


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Taking a dump between a pair of barstools would be better. A stool that had fallen between two stools would be even more open to critical interpretation.


Wasn't there a famous football manager who used to do that as a party trick? Stand on 2 barstools and shit into a pint glass on the floor?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Wasn't there a famous football manager who used to do that as a party trick? Stand on 2 barstools and shit into a pint glass on the floor?



That's so disgusting and yet I'm intrigued and amused. ..lol ....


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yeah but a stool on a stool would be something for the art critics to work themselves into a frenzied stupor over.


Here one Piero Manzoni prepared earlier:


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

Has anyone done a polished turd? Dipped in lacquer and buffed to blinding sheen?

(shuffles off to become an artist)


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Has anyone done a polished turd? Dipped in lacquer and buffed to blinding sheen?


Mythbusters polished a turd.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Mythbusters polished a turd.


That's flushed my hopes of ever becoming a famous artist


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Here one Piero Manzoni prepared earlier:
> 
> View attachment 52489



That is so interesting. ......

It MUST be art


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> That's flushed my hopes of ever becoming a famous artist


Dont worry. .you still have an opportunity. Mythbusters never called theirs art...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Daniel Edwards and...Suri Cruise  and her poop beat you to it DrHerbz.... oh ewell


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 20, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Daniel Edwards and...Suri Cruise  and her poop beat you to it DrHerbz.... oh ewell


That's a gilded truffle... not quite what I had in mind.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 20, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Warhol was a unique character whose lifestyle and personality somewhat over shadowed his art. He was a brilliant networker with connections in many spheres of the artistic and music world.
> I can respect his work and do appreciate it. However I also think that the "cult of personality" was very much part of his success.
> 
> I'd go so far as to say that current art trends rely on the artist's persona being "unique" or "uniquely different". Artists now have to explain their work in terms of philosophy, psychology, occasionally historically and there can be tremendous accolades given to artwork that is, to the observer in essence, quite sparse and devoid of implicit meaning.
> ...



Art has always been about symbolism. Most classic paintings are chock full of references to the bible, greek and roman legend, political events of the day etc.


----------



## killer b (Apr 20, 2014)

I hear Russ abbot is hiring writers you two. Reckon you'd walk straight in. This stuff is gold.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 20, 2014)

Me?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Art has always been about symbolism. Most classic paintings are chock full of references to the bible, greek and roman legend, political events of the day etc.



Yes..well I know that there can be a lot of symbolism in art. Historically a lot of intentional symbolism was displayed in religious works of art. Also the symbolist movement in the late 19th century rejected realism and naturalism. Their paintings were realistic to a degree, but their ideas were not visual. Gustav Klimt would be a favourite of mine.
Art has always been a means of communicating. Symbolically or not, representational or not. Realistically or not. The connect between the artist, their materials, the final artwork and the observer should become a revelation. There are then degrees of revelation. Some will be visual. Some will be emotional or psychological or historical or symbolical. But it is all about the reveal and the response.  I don't believe any one of these is superior to others. Hence my very broad view on " what is art ".


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> I hear Russ abbot is hiring writers you two. Reckon you'd walk straight in. This stuff is gold.



Has "Grey Mates" been on telly yet?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 20, 2014)

Why do so many people feel the need to question something's existence as art, conflating it with a discussion or proclamation of whether they actually like it or not?

What the fuck does it matter if something is or isn't art? Is it some kind of exercise in justifying their own taste in a way that shows that they understand certain _truths _about art, beauty, value and worth? Why is it not enough to say, "I don't really like that very much," or, "I think that's good," or, "I like it well enough, but I prefer this type of thing..."? Why does it have to be prefaced or suffixed with a discussion about whether or not it is art? Does giving it the label of art elevate it into something better than it already is? Does it make it prettier? Does it make it more impactful? Does it make you like it more?

And if one person says, "this to me is art," why would it be so important to disprove that person? Because you don't like it? It's not to your taste? Because giving it the label of art somehow hurts you? It causes the things that you think are art to become devalued? If you like those things because of how they look and what they say to you, why does their status as art matter? Why does the presence of things you don't like being included under the umbrella of art take away the personal enjoyment you get from the things you do like? Does gay people getting married ruin your straight marriage?

It's all a big old load of wank. Who fucking cares what anyone calls this stuff? If people want to part with thousands of pounds let them. More fool them. If Hirst wants to con people by getting lackeys to paint a bunch of dots for other people to buy for hundreds of thousands, buyer beware. If some girl wants to draw a photorealistic picture of a man and someone thinks it's art, good for them, good for her. Why do we need to argue so vehemently that only our definition is the correct one?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Why do so many people feel the need to question something's existence as art, conflating it with a discussion or proclamation of whether they actually like it or not?
> 
> What the fuck does it matter if something is or isn't art? Is it some kind of exercise in justifying their own taste in a way that shows that they understand certain _truths _about art, beauty, value and worth? Why is it not enough to say, "I don't really like that very much," or, "I think that's good," or, "I like it well enough, but I prefer this type of thing..."? Why does it have to be prefaced or suffixed with a discussion about whether or not it is art? Does giving it the label of art elevate it into something better than it already is? Does it make it prettier? Does it make it more impactful? Does it make you like it more?
> 
> ...



Fair points there.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

I
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




This is the same girl's winning entry for 2013 ..aged 15






And 2012 aged 14






And 2011...aged 13




2010....aged 12...


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 20, 2014)

Great skills but not great art.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 20, 2014)

The bloke at the bottom looks like a proper wrongun


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 20, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Great skills but not great art.



See this is the thing. Why the need to say it's not art (or great art)?

What does it bring to the appreciation of her talent?

"Great skills but not great art." That's giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Why can't we just say, "wow, she's very talented"? Why do we also need to slap her in the face and say, "but you're not a _real_ artist"? "You're good, but you're not _good enough_ or good _in the right way_."

Why?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 20, 2014)

It's others who are claiming that it is great art. My argument is with them not her. She is clearly a great talent.
We are not 'slapping her in the face' if we comment on this. We are just discussing it here.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Great skills but not great art.





Orang Utan said:


> It's others who are claiming that it is great art. My argument is with them not her. She is clearly a great talent.
> We are only 'slapping her in the face' if we tell her this. We are just discussing it here.



When you say, "we are only 'slapping her in the face' if we tell her this", what the fuck do you mean? And why are you using the royal we? 
As for discussing it? You're not discussing it at all. You're just telling everyone that the girl has  "Great skills but not great art". I'd say if a little known DaVinci or Catravagio drawing of an old man was posted here and referenced as hers, there would be someone saying "great skills but not great art"....


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 20, 2014)

Oops - my phone must have autocorrected not to only!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It's others who are claiming that it is great art.




Actually, the "others" you refer to are claiming it IS art. That is all. The debate took a "what is art" tangential twist a while back.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 20, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Oops - my phone must have autocorrected not to only!



By.any chance is it an iphone?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 21, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> The bloke at the bottom looks like a proper wrongun



I've a feeling that's a portrait of John B. Keane....


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> See this is the thing. Why the need to say it's not art (or great art)?
> 
> What does it bring to the appreciation of her talent?
> 
> ...



Because art is subjective.

Every artist knows this. We put ourselves on a pedestal to be knocked down by the majority. I would never put my work up for competition to be judged mind. Fuck that!

Everyone is entitled to assess art from their own viewpoint. We need a bad scale as much as a good scale. Art is art, but sometimes it really doesn't deserve to be art.


----------



## Cid (Apr 21, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> This is the same girl's winning entry for 2013 ..aged 15
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 21, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> See this is the thing. Why the need to say it's not art (or great art)?
> 
> What does it bring to the appreciation of her talent?
> 
> ...


for me, I teach an arts subject and spend a lot of time trying to help the kids find their ability, their confidence to create art.  And to do that, i need to break down for them what 'art' (in a theatrical sense, in my case) actually is.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 25, 2014)

Warhol tracing on video!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 25, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Wasn't there a famous football manager who used to do that as a party trick? Stand on 2 barstools and shit into a pint glass on the floor?



Diarrhea or logs?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Apr 25, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> for me, I teach an arts subject and spend a lot of time trying to help the kids find their ability, their confidence to create art.  And to do that, i need to break down for them what 'art' (in a theatrical sense, in my case) actually is.




please don't feel like I'm picking on you or anything, but while I see what you're saying, as a visual art teacher myself I have to say I also try to get across to students and foster in them a love for the process itself without worrying about what people are going to think, or what their own inner critic says...with visual art the process of making art is where a big part of the beauty of it is...I think that anyone being passionately involved in what they're creating, as shows in this girl's work, is certainly an artist.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 25, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> for me, I teach an arts subject and spend a lot of time trying to help the kids find their ability, their confidence to create art.  And to do that, i need to break down for them what 'art' (in a theatrical sense, in my case) actually is.



Instead of talking to them about 'art', might it work to explore with them more of the concept of 'creativity'.

If one is letting one's creative side have some expression, does it matter what the definition of 'art' is? The joy is in the creation.


----------

