Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Comments:

Old Comments:

2010-04-02 03:19:05
Photorealism further obscures the line between photography and painting...is a painting based on close observation of a photograph of something somehow less worthy as art than a painting based on close observation of something directly ? Photos are just another device, and artists have used all sorts of devices to help them proudce 'realistic' effects...look at Canalettos' cityscapes ...the modern eye cannot avoid seeing tham as or at least compaaring them to photograhs, so perfect is the perspective and detail..beacuse....Canaletto used a camera obscura to create his images...is his work of less worth or value or artistic merit because of that?
2010-04-02 02:00:03
And this is a comment written on 1. April. :P
2010-04-01 15:57:56
Thanks for the info quest4tvl5a
2010-04-01 14:31:48
There is no question that this is a painting. Carl Brenders is a well known wildlife artist that publishes his paintings through Millpond Press. His painting style is very similar to Robert Bateman's, however Brenders is not as well known. I have no reason to believe that these paintings are, in any major way, copied from photographs Mr. Knowitall. Of course the uploaded image here IS A PHOTO, albeit a photo of a painting.
2010-04-01 11:06:49
I went to the site, and it is a painting. Robert Bateman is another one of those. Some so-called 'artist' complain about that style of painting from a photo. Art is art.
2010-04-01 11:04:25
If it is a painting it's an example of photo-realism ala Chuck Close, Ralph Goings, Glennray Tutor et al,...these painintgs are painstakingly copied inch by inch from photographs, often using a grid, sometimes using an overhead projector...
2010-04-01 08:23:56
Are you sure? On second look, maybe you're right.
2010-04-01 07:42:18
This is a painting -