Works-of-art-you-wont-believe-aren't-photographs

[davieG]

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

[Webbo]

The skill involved is amazing but what's the point of having a painting exactly the same as a photograph? Why not just buy the photo instead?

[21st Century Fox]

The skill involved is amazing but what's the point of having a painting exactly the same as a photograph? Why not just buy the photo instead?

 

Kind of answered your own question. They're monuments to how astonishing the human brain is.

 

Richard Estes is definitely my favourite photo realistic painter.

 

[Rincewind]

Someone did some pavement paintings at the Clock Tower earlier in the year. I have photos of them somewhere.

[Vacamion]

They are amazing.

 

I love the comment underneath that opines "They should have let one of these artists do the Queen's portrait".  It might have looked like her...

[jonthefox]

Incredible.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Brilliant.

 

I don't like art though in it's contemporary format. I could shit on a canvass from a height of 5m and define it as art. Dad is massively into it being an architect and went round a University exhibition the other day. He got talking to one student who had decided to cover herself in paint and then press different parts of her body on the canvass to find out what part made the heaviest impression on the canvass. What a load of bollocks. She also admitted that she can't draw and dislikes drawing.

 

Why the hell are you in art then? Or does it say more about the syllabuses people study?

 

Sorry for going off on a tangent.

[21st Century Fox]

Brilliant.

 

I don't like art though in it's contemporary format. I could shit on a canvass from a height of 5m and define it as art. Dad is massively into it being an architect and went round a University exhibition the other day. He got talking to one student who had decided to cover herself in paint and then press different parts of her body on the canvass to find out what part made the heaviest impression on the canvass. What a load of bollocks. She also admitted that she can't draw and dislikes drawing.

 

Why the hell are you in art then? Or does it say more about the syllabuses people study?

 

Sorry for going off on a tangent.

 

You really don't have to be able to draw to be an artist.

[The Year Of The Fox]

You really don't have to be able to draw to be an artist.

That's all that's wrong with art then IMO. (if you can't paint as well as draw)

 

Basically anyone can call themselves an artist. That's kind of offensive to anyone with genuine talent who is actually an artist.

 

I play football on a Sunday morning, albeit badly. It doesn't make me a footballer

[21st Century Fox]

That's all that's wrong with art then IMO. (if you can't paint as well as draw)

 

Art isn't just painting and drawing. You're confusing art with technique.

[Webbo]

That's all that's wrong with art then IMO. (if you can't paint as well as draw)

Photographers can be artists as well.

[21st Century Fox]

Photographers can be artists as well.

 

So can architects.

[Finnegan]

So can footballers, to refer back to Stu's analogy. 

[Kitchandro]

You really don't have to be able to draw to be an artist.

 

I think we understand what he's getting at. A lot of things that are considered art are in fact just random splodges of paint or things a 3 year old could do.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Exactly, but would anyone put these in the same bracket as Van Gough?

My dad is an architect though he wouldn't class himself as an artist.

[Alf Bentley]

"What is art?", an eternal question.... "Expression" would be a close synonym, I'd say

 

I could shit on a canvass from a height of 5m and define it as art. 

 

What would your 5m shit express? If it expressed something, then it could indeed be art, I think (not that the particular definition matters - it's the effect, or is it even the effect....is it the expression, even if nobody ever sees the "art"?)

 

Art isn't just painting and drawing. You're confusing art with technique.

 

Spot on! Technique, draughtsmanship, whatever is a skill and not one to be dismissed, but it is a different thing from art.

Most mid-70s prog-rockers were great technicians and lousy artists, as their technique expressed nothing of worth but bombast and hubris at their own technical expertise... 

 

Basically anyone can call themselves an artist. That's kind of offensive to anyone with genuine talent who is actually an artist.

 

I play football on a Sunday morning, albeit badly. It doesn't make me a footballer

 

Anyone can call themselves an artist, but who decides who is an artist? Artists themselves may know that they are artists, because they are expressing something (but does it have to be effective expression - which comes first, expression or communication?) - or others may recognise them as artists, whatever their field....

 

Photographers can be artists as well.

 

Absolutely...

 

So can architects.

 

Absolutely again....and so can anyone in any field (including a football field....are the very best footballers not described as artists?)

[21st Century Fox]

 

Exactly, but would anyone put these in the same bracket as Van Gough?

My dad is an architect though he wouldn't class himself as an artist.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Frank Lloyd Wright was an artist in my book.

 

EDIT: Oh and Gaudi too. Christopher Wren... Inigo Jones?

 

Heck, there's loads.

[Kitchandro]

"What is art?", an eternal question.... "Expression" would be a close synonym, I'd say

 

 

What would your 5m shit express? If it expressed something, then it could indeed be art, I think (not that the particular definition matters - it's the effect, or is it even the effect....is it the expression, even if nobody ever sees the "art"?)

 

 

Spot on! Technique, draughtsmanship, whatever is a skill and not one to be dismissed, but it is a different thing from art.

Most mid-70s prog-rockers were great technicians and lousy artists, as their technique expressed nothing of worth but bombast and hubris at their own technical expertise... 

 

 

Anyone can call themselves an artist, but who decides who is an artist? Artists themselves may know that they are artists, because they are expressing something (but does it have to be effective expression - which comes first, expression or communication?) - or others may recognise them as artists, whatever their field....

 

 

You talk about expression but anyone can come up with some bullshit about what they're expressing and people will buy it. That doesn't mean they are actually expressing anything.

[21st Century Fox]

You talk about expression but anyone can come up with some bullshit about what they're expressing and people will buy it. That doesn't mean they are actually expressing anything.

 

It depends whether you consider art a commodity. Most controversial pieces are art but whether they have value (not financial) is usually where the actual controversy lies.

[The Year Of The Fox]

It all depends how you define art. My dad can draw. Incredibly well. To formulate how a house as those above shall look in their head is art I suppose. But he isn't an artist.

Don't confuse my football analogy too much. I meant that I play football but I'm not a footballer. In that someone can draw but it doesn't make them an artist.

I could be classed as an artist with how we make our boiler houses look in that respect.

I'm not knocking anyone, I just find it ridiculous that the woman in my first post has tried to do a uni course or part of, by covering herself in ink and rubbing herself onto some paper. You have to have a skill to be something/someone, a skill that separates them from normal folk trying to poorly emulate them

[Webbo]

There is a lot of pretentious bullsh1t masquerading as art these days I'll agree. It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

[21st Century Fox]

It all depends how you define art. My dad can draw. Incredibly well. To formulate how a house as those above shall look in their head is art I suppose. But he isn't an artist.

Don't confuse my football analogy too much. I meant that I play football but I'm not a footballer. In that someone can draw but it doesn't make them an artist.

I could be classed as an artist with how we make our boiler houses look in that respect.

I'm not knocking anyone, I just find it ridiculous that the woman in my first post has tried to do a uni course or part of, by covering herself in ink and rubbing herself onto some paper. You have to have a skill to be something/someone, a skill that separates them from normal folk trying to poorly emulate them

 

Would you say the two buildings I posted above were created by people who were merely concerned with function?

[MPH]

There is a lot of pretentious bullsh1t masquerading as art these days I'll agree. It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

 

 

A bedroom scene with the quilt moved back, used condom on the floor... I absolutely agree - that's anything BUT art....

 

 

I can already see the way this thread is going!

 

[Alf Bentley]

You talk about expression but anyone can come up with some bullshit about what they're expressing and people will buy it. That doesn't mean they are actually expressing anything.

 

So who decides whether someone is expressing something - and whether it is of any merit?

 

You? Not the would-be artist, presumably, to judge from your comment. Is there some official or expert body that decides whether someone is expressing something and whether it is art? Is it the market? If so, buyers or non-paying consumers?

 

Jaded cynicism is easy but gets us nowhere. You've dismissed my suggestion that art is about expression and can be produced in any field...... What is your alternative suggestion?

 

Returning to the OP: some very good art among the images presented - variable in quality and partly a matter of preference, as ever, but some are outstanding.