If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   These amazing photographs are actually oil paintings (a couple are not safe for work)   (sploid.gizmodo.com) divider line 99
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

20747 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 2:25 AM (5 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-14 11:47:08 PM
Cool, but copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art.
 
2014-07-15 12:07:32 AM
i.kinja-img.com

You know nothing, Jon Snow
 
2014-07-15 12:13:50 AM
"Why a dog licks its balls" school of art.

/ no offense, I'd do the same if I could.
// lick my balls, that is, not paint pretty lasses.
 
2014-07-15 12:56:02 AM
Actually, subby, for most of us, they are photographs of oil paintings of photographs (I assume since I'm guessing most of us are seeing them on a computer screen rather than in person ;p ).

Props to the artist for being able to skillfully recreate the original photos with oil paint, but any credit for content and composition should go to the photographer. I'd be super-impressed if the artist were creating such paintings purely from his imagination.
 
2014-07-15 02:27:04 AM
I finger paint with poop in public restrooms

it's all about spreading art to the people

bie?
eip
 
2014-07-15 02:30:41 AM

Omahawg: I finger paint with poop in public restrooms

it's all about spreading art to the people

bie?
eip


I will never understand why so many people do this.
 
2014-07-15 02:32:06 AM
i.kinja-img.com

Let the right one in.
 
2014-07-15 02:32:48 AM
There is a level of craftsmanship here that I can't help but admire, and even envy a little bit.  My honest opinion though, is that it isn't particularly good art, and not very interesting except on a "wow, that's impressive" level.
 
2014-07-15 02:34:24 AM
I'd like to commission the Rock and Emma Watson photoshop, but the original.
 
2014-07-15 02:36:36 AM

mamoru: Actually, subby, for most of us, they are photographs of oil paintings of photographs (I assume since I'm guessing most of us are seeing them on a computer screen rather than in person ;p ).

Props to the artist for being able to skillfully recreate the original photos with oil paint, but any credit for content and composition should go to the photographer. I'd be super-impressed if the artist were creating such paintings purely from his imagination.


He takes his own photographs.
 
2014-07-15 02:41:49 AM
i.kinja-img.com

Dunno what it is about her, but I just can't stop from gawking at this woman. Not in a "ZOMG WUMAN!! WANT HUMP!!!" type thing, she's just strangely beautiful IMO...
 
2014-07-15 02:43:35 AM
You had me at nsfw, subby.

/they're a bit corpsey.
 
2014-07-15 02:44:55 AM
I was promised NSFW images and sadly none were delivered.
 
2014-07-15 02:46:41 AM
NSFW ? Question, if a picture is painted and shows breast it's art. But if it's a photograph shows breast it's NSFW.
What is the difference ?
 
2014-07-15 02:52:41 AM
I'll be on the top bunk while I ummmmmmmmmm......... examine this fine series of art pieces.

cdn.chud.com
 
2014-07-15 03:00:36 AM
I've always been quite impressed with this one:

i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-07-15 03:02:50 AM
My mum is not safe for work.
 
2014-07-15 03:08:47 AM

Big Ramifications: My mum is not safe for work.


That's why she always insists I use protection with her when she's at work.
 
2014-07-15 03:09:08 AM
i.kinja-img.com

If he paints women, why give this one a penis?
 
2014-07-15 03:09:12 AM
I want to have a happy little accident over the women in those paintings.
 
2014-07-15 03:13:56 AM
Only one woman wearing something with RED in the outfit. I feel safe, even if it is just a painting of a photo with a seemingly threatening woman.
 
2014-07-15 03:15:29 AM

cig-mkr: NSFW ? Question, if a picture is painted and shows breast it's art. But if it's a photograph shows breast it's NSFW.
What is the difference ?


Probably because when drawing/painting the female form it's an artist's interpretation of what that form is in their mind, rather than taking a photograph which requires essentially no interperation of the female form. It's there, you snap a picture, and your done. It could also go back to what people think pornography is. Pornography has its origins in photographs and film, and seems to be exclusive of that medium. Even though we have become enlightened about sex through the past 100 years pornography does still carry a stigmata to it, and American society is still has some puritan views and rules when it comes to sex and sexuality. But even those views are slowly. changing.

For a different perspective let's shift downward to the pubic area. I came across this article about how someone was offended at this painting because it was deemed pornographic. So why was this art piece considered pornographic? Well it had the audacity to show the subject's public hair. I guess in the art world, painting a bush on a female is taboo or bad taste. Probably would explain why every female nude art piece I saw she had a hairless public region.
 
2014-07-15 03:17:21 AM

Iczer: [i.kinja-img.com image 800x532]

Dunno what it is about her, but I just can't stop from gawking at this woman. Not in a "ZOMG WUMAN!! WANT HUMP!!!" type thing, she's just strangely beautiful IMO...


www.nndb.com
 
2014-07-15 03:18:21 AM

Nightshade50: cig-mkr: NSFW ? Question, if a picture is painted and shows breast it's art. But if it's a photograph shows breast it's NSFW.
What is the difference ?

Probably because when drawing/painting the female form it's an artist's interpretation of what that form is in their mind, rather than taking a photograph which requires essentially no interperation of the female form. It's there, you snap a picture, and your done. It could also go back to what people think pornography is. Pornography has its origins in photographs and film, and seems to be exclusive of that medium. Even though we have become enlightened about sex through the past 100 years pornography does still carry a stigmata to it, and American society is still has some puritan views and rules when it comes to sex and sexuality. But even those views are slowly. changing.

For a different perspective let's shift downward to the pubic area. I came across this article about how someone was offended at this painting because it was deemed pornographic. So why was this art piece considered pornographic? Well it had the audacity to show the subject's public hair. I guess in the art world, painting a bush on a female is taboo or bad taste. Probably would explain why every female nude art piece I saw she had a hairless public region.


Just ask the Japanese...
 
2014-07-15 03:19:43 AM

dookdookdook: Cool, but copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art.


Go ahead and do it yourself. I'll wait.

DerAppie: mamoru: Actually, subby, for most of us, they are photographs of oil paintings of photographs (I assume since I'm guessing most of us are seeing them on a computer screen rather than in person ;p ).

Props to the artist for being able to skillfully recreate the original photos with oil paint, but any credit for content and composition should go to the photographer. I'd be super-impressed if the artist were creating such paintings purely from his imagination.

He takes his own photographs.


And uses them as references only. He's not simply recreating a photograph. But even if he was, it would still be amazing.
As for painting purely from imagination, nobody who paints realistically does that. Even Michelangelo worked from references.
 
2014-07-15 03:23:35 AM
The site claims that these are "erotic images."  I don't think they know what that phrase means.
 
2014-07-15 03:30:44 AM
If you like realistic painting you might want to Google "Claudio bravo artist" .

/if you don't put "artist" you get Claudio Bravo the goalkeeper
 
2014-07-15 03:54:53 AM
Johannes Vermeer laughs at these shinnanigans!
 
2014-07-15 04:12:18 AM

dookdookdook: Cool, but copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art.


i missed the part where you define art for everyone else.
 
2014-07-15 04:19:49 AM

dookdookdook: copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art


Is there some sort of check list the rest of us could consult to determine what is and isn't art or do we just have to put up the dook signal and wait for you to show up and render judgement?
 
2014-07-15 04:21:14 AM

miniflea: There is a level of craftsmanship here that I can't help but admire, and even envy a little bit.  My honest opinion though, is that it isn't particularly good art, and not very interesting except on a "wow, that's impressive" level.


He's the Thomas Kinkade of naked girls.
 
2014-07-15 04:21:15 AM

The hopeless imp: dookdookdook: Cool, but copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art.

Go ahead and do it yourself. I'll wait.

DerAppie: mamoru: Actually, subby, for most of us, they are photographs of oil paintings of photographs (I assume since I'm guessing most of us are seeing them on a computer screen rather than in person ;p ).

Props to the artist for being able to skillfully recreate the original photos with oil paint, but any credit for content and composition should go to the photographer. I'd be super-impressed if the artist were creating such paintings purely from his imagination.

He takes his own photographs.

And uses them as references only. He's not simply recreating a photograph. But even if he was, it would still be amazing.
As for painting purely from imagination, nobody who paints realistically does that. Even Michelangelo worked from references.


camera obcscura, and all that. yep. it's all good. because without the talent, no hand made copy of a photo is going to look like these.

"that isn't art because they use camera/waacom/brush/paint when true artists only use cavern walls of stone, their fingers, and their own blood n feces!". what?
 
2014-07-15 04:25:30 AM

The hopeless imp: dookdookdook: Cool, but copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art.

Go ahead and do it yourself. I'll wait.


While defining art is a fool's game, defending art by defending its craftsmanship is just as much a fool's game. They're basically orthogonal.

(Besides, anyone with sight and a half-steady hand can eventually train themselves to copy a photo, even if it takes decades. Will you really wait?)
 
2014-07-15 04:28:27 AM

Dreamless: The site claims that these are "erotic images."  I don't think they know what that phrase means.


Exactly. These paintings need a lot more smoo.
 
2014-07-15 04:59:05 AM

cig-mkr: NSFW ? Question, if a picture is painted and shows breast it's art. But if it's a photograph shows breast it's NSFW.
What is the difference ?


One is more likely to get you fired.  From work.
 
2014-07-15 05:28:20 AM

miniflea: There is a level of craftsmanship here that I can't help but admire, and even envy a little bit.  My honest opinion though, is that it isn't particularly good art, and not very interesting except on a "wow, that's impressive" level.


Same. The technical aspect is amazing, I just am not inspired by the pictures. It's so perfect that it stops being art - there's no creative aspect, only skill.
 
2014-07-15 05:54:10 AM
some of them are missing the spark of life, and the women look like they are posed corpses.
 
2014-07-15 06:02:12 AM
Kind of obsessed with teenage girls, huh?

David Hamilton for the modern age.
 
2014-07-15 06:04:12 AM

Big Ramifications: Dreamless: The site claims that these are "erotic images."  I don't think they know what that phrase means.

Exactly. These paintings need a lot more smoo.


THIS. Having to ask myself "Is she even alive?" for half of those kind of wrecked whatever erotic aspect he was going for.

It's like seeing a collection of pictures of pretty girls mixed in with police crime scene photos.
 
2014-07-15 06:18:41 AM

quatchi: It's like seeing a collection of pictures of pretty girls mixed in with police crime scene photos.


I'm picturing a website like hot or not in my mind... "Dead or Goth" perhaps?
 
2014-07-15 06:35:29 AM
So, this guy is carrying out the same task that a photocopier or printer does, only much more slowly.

Not art. Technically impressive, but not art.

As a photographer, he could qualify as being an artist.  Some pretty neat pictures. But taking any photograph to Kinkos can accomplish the same effect as his painting.  That he's taking the long route and doing it by hand in a painstaking fashion only points to his determination and/or obsessive nature.
 
2014-07-15 06:43:51 AM
So, how old was he when he saw the drowned girl in the river?  Did he do the drowning?
 
2014-07-15 06:44:41 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-15 06:53:25 AM
His technique is amazing but the Dreamy Waif motif leaves me cold.  To be honest (and this is just a personal opinion) I think it borders on tacky.
 
2014-07-15 06:57:35 AM

dookdookdook: Cool, but copying a photograph onto canvas with paint isn't art.


Like norman rockwell?
 
2014-07-15 07:01:28 AM

gadian: So, how old was he when he saw the drowned girl in the river?  Did he do the drowning?


www.davidbordwell.net

Feck: I killed a girl, it was no accident. Put a gun to the back of her head and blew her brains right out the front. I was in love.

Samson: I strangled mine.

Feck: Did you love her?

Samson: She was okay.

 
2014-07-15 07:01:49 AM

omeganuepsilon: So, this guy is carrying out the same task that a photocopier or printer does, only much more slowly.

Not art. Technically impressive, but not art.

As a photographer, he could qualify as being an artist.  Some pretty neat pictures. But taking any photograph to Kinkos can accomplish the same effect as his painting.  That he's taking the long route and doing it by hand in a painstaking fashion only points to his determination and/or obsessive nature.


http://fp.optics.arizona.edu/SSD/art-optics/papers/OPN.pdf

I thought painting by camera obscura was old news.
 
2014-07-15 07:40:54 AM

LordOfThePings: [i.kinja-img.com image 636x431]

If he paints women, why give this one a penis?


Because he can`t deviate even slightly from the photograph or it just looks fake. He`s not an artist, he`s an expensive biological photographic enlarger. No more.
 
2014-07-15 07:46:16 AM
Vermeer did it hundreds of years ago, without the aid of photography.
 
2014-07-15 07:50:50 AM
I think they're pretty cool from a technical standpoint. But they seem a little ordinary to me.
 I can't find the artist I'm looking for on Google(art appreciation was a long time ago), but I've always liked one "hyper-realist/photo-realist" who did a lot of work with skyscrapers with mirrored glass. Maybe because they seem more "fantastic".
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report