Skip to comments.No, they’re not photographs: Astonishing acrylic paintings..you thought you could paint?
Posted on 06/09/2012 3:46:55 PM PDT by Doogle
With their spectacular use of focus and reflected light, these incredible artworks look like carefully composed still-life photographs.
But in fact they are all painstakingly rendered on canvas with acrylic paints by Canadian artist Jason de Graaf.
The hyperrealistic paintings, which almost appear as if they are computer generated, are like freeze frames of a world more magical than our own - inspiring the term Magic Realism as a description.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That’s not Magic Realism. Magic Realism is a movement in art and literature that started in Latin America in the 1920s. The term was coined by the Cuban novelist and historian Alejo Carpentier. One of the most well known examples of magic realism in art would be the paintings of Frida Kahlo.
Now that’s art.
If you like photo-realistic painting I highly recommend visiting the O.K. Harris gallery on West Broadway in Soho.
Long before there was CGI, there was “photo-realism” through the use of photography, projectors and airbrushes.
how do it without a single brush stroke showing is what gets me as they have to be completely flat, not let the canvas show through yet still not let the paint build up...
Yeah, I don’t believe it. I think it’s BS.
They probably aren’t QUITE as impressive in real life, for that very reason.
What a talent!
My Favorite is Obscura.
I like how he challenges himself with the use of mirrored gazing balls.
You are exactly right! They project a photograph onto their surface and copy it exactly. I am not impressed.
Man, this guy is really putting the ultra in ultra realism. I like how he reproduces the limited depth of field of photographs with paint.
Admittedly, it’s a cool effect but, isn’t making a work of art look like a photograph...umm...self defeating? Is it really art or just mimicry? Think about it. If I copy a masterpiece exactly- the Mona Lisa for instance. Is that art? True art comes from your heart, your id, your ego, your very soul- not a copy machine.
Mr de Graaf told Poets & Artists magazine that his paintings are about creating the 'illusion of verisimilitude', filtered through his own vision of the world. 'Though I use photographs as the image source, my goal is not to reproduce of document faithfully what I see, but to create an illusion of depth and sense of presence not found in photographs,' he said. 'Many of my paintings are about the relationship of light with reflective and transparent surfaces and my journey to understand those qualities and convey my sense of wonder and intrigue over them. 'Lately I have been trying to imbue my paintings with a sense of narrative and lyricism.' Mr de Graaf is represented by the Plus One Gallery in London and by Galerie de Bellefeuille in Montreal.
Thanks for posting the Caillebotte, one of my favorite paintings at the Chicago Art Institute. It’s a huge painting and you’re drawn into the Paris street scene.
Ah, my sincere, albeit simple minded friend. I can’t write someone and tell them how to be an artist. It comes from within. It’s an epiphany of sorts, where one’s creativity, one’s self actualization as a human spirit evolves from the very essence of their identity as a sentient being. I’m afraid you’ve seen too many matchbook covers advertising the “Famous Artists School” where they ask you to copy a picture of a dog. If only art was that easy.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm...
from normal viewing distance (over 3' away) i bet they are close
..so does BS
Well, thats sure a wonder.
Extraordinary. His technique is off the charts.
I thought I did ultrarelistic digital painting, but I can’t hold a candle to this guy.
The canvases must be huge. But even then, this is very time-consuming
and incredibly skilled.
The downside is that the subject matter is mundane.
But his paintings will make a nice conversation piece in some billionaire’s pad.
My guess is Van Gogh would hate all of these paintings.
Manet: The first "Photorealist"
I always like Richard Estes' stuff.
Read about it here:
Photo. What do I win?
Using Picasa (who needs Photoshop?! (Which I also have.)) I’ve been making my photographs look like paintings lately.
Yes - because it is attractive to the eye, created by a human being, shows a personal perspective on something, and requires artistic talent *
*these are my criteria for visual art.
There was a graphics artist in my town who designed stylish, posters, store signs, restaurant menues, wine labels, book covers, all instantly recognizeable as his, who always claimed that he was not an “artist” but an “illustrator”.
Is it art? Why or why not?
There is such a category as naïve art (Wiki: Naïve art is a classification of art that is often characterized by a childlike simplicity in its subject matter and technique.)
I had the original photoshop from years ago when it was outrageously expensive. I won’t go into how I got it...
but it had so many options and capabilities with lighting and colors, it was really fun to experiment with......
Oh, it still takes plenty of skill. David Hockney wrote a book ("Secret Knowledge") about classical artists using a type of projection even back in the Renaissance. He was convinced Vermeer used a method of projection in several of his paintings.
I was just pointing out that there's really nothing new here. The article sounded like this was some new development, or something.
Interesting comment...and I agree. He is a technician...a brilliant one...but not an artist. I remember back in the ‘70s, I met an ‘artist’...he was an incredible technician too...but when he said to me “I don’t know what to paint” I knew he was not an artist.
***You are exactly right! They project a photograph onto their surface and copy it exactly. I am not impressed.***
There are companies advertizing in art magazines that they will take your photos and print them on canvas so you can paint over them.
Just what we needed, one more crack out of you!...