This might be old news, but I thought it might make for a fun debate... someone sent this to me, and after googling a little bit, the story appears to be authentic...

This claims to be an insanely realistic photoreal painting:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070527152841/...kshops/tica.htm

What you are seeing at the link is apparently not a photograph, but a painting. It raises a lot of interesting questions -- real or fake? Is there a value to photorealistic painting verses just taking a photograph? What is art?

Deep thoughts for a Friday Opinions?

Interesting. Let's say for the purposes of discussion that it's real (something I'm inclined to doubt but not inclined to research... how's that for a cop-out?). It would take an amazingly talented painter, but for what purpose? To say "Look what I can do"?

The definition of art is something that has been endlessly debated and brings up all sorts of questions (is there such thing as objectively "good" art? "bad" art? or is it simply beauty-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder?) and I'm not really an authority on such things, though I would like to be and have thought of buying a beret or something to enhance my image in that area.

While I can appreciate the talent/skill that would be required to do something like this, the piece strikes me as rather sterile, if that makes sense. I'd prefer to look at a piece that challenges me on some level.

Ramblings of a Friday-afternoon photographer who should be designing albums instead.

Ryan

I'm inclined to agree with you. Assuming it is genuine, I have to wonder what more does the image offer to the viewer than a demonstration of a precise skill and execution? I certainly admire the technical talent and the attention to detail, but if the end goal was to replicate a photograph -- particularly an existing photograph -- you're right, why not simply deliver and frame the original photograph? I wonder if there's much longevity to the painting, because it's so representational. I do remember once seeing some photo real paintings of old diners once, which I thought were easy on the eyes and enjoyable.

"Art" is a sticky subject for sure. Is it not art because it merely replicates photography? Or, is it art because it generates discussions and debates on the web? Art gets people talking I suppose.

Not that the artist is marketing to brides, but imagine -- for a chuckle -- the sales pitch to the bride: "I can sell you this lovely bridal photo portrait, or I can sell you this photo real painting that looks just like the photo, but with a $5k markup"

Good luck with those albums

As he points out, it was a class project.

Photorealistic paintings aren't anything new - when they work from photos, they sometimes even paint in the depth of field effects.

Photorealistic art is a commentary on a world dominated by photography and video imagery.

The point, however, is that it's not a photo - and because it's not a photo, it forces you to look at (and think about) representation in a different way (not to mention marvel at the technical skill). One thing, of course, you can't see in a photograph of something like this is texture, brush marks, or whatever - and that's another big difference between something like this and a photograph.

And there area lot of people who would pay $5K - or $50K - for something like this over a portrait or even a complete album.

The artist says the following, which makes me think he just doesn't get it:

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

Certainly there are photographs that are not art. But that does not render all photography not art. If 5 of us were in the same place taking a photograph of the same subject, I think we would find 5 different images, because we each bring something of ourselves into the images we create. It is a reflection of reality, as seen through the photographer's eyes. The photographer chooses, through depth of field, shutter speed, and composition not only WHAT the viewer sees, but also HOW the subject is presented. Elements are included, excluded, and juxaposed deliberately to reflect the photographer's vision. A photograph can convey a different message from what was happening in reality. A photographer makes value judgements by choosing what to photograph and what not to photograph, and when choosing to photograph, what elements to emphasize, include, and exclude.

I take offense that he believes himself to be MORE of an artist because his medium is paint whereas mine is a camera.