I agree with him completely when he writes: "The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills."

However, when he writes: "This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal" I have to say, "not so much".

my housemate's first python script was to help with documenting processes such as this one. when he runs the script it takes a screenshot and then provides a text box for him to comment in. it basically added version control to his mechanical engineering design process. he wanted to document why he was making certain design changes as he went. i imagine it work for this process, too.

What bothers me is not that he claims that what he has done is art --- it is. What frightens me is that he claims photography is not art.

Photos are not 'mere reproductions of reality' any more than his painting is. Paint, print, screen, clay, plaster -- these are not reality; they do not have the fidelity of the real world. When I paint, I must decide to what degree the intensity of light is important, to what degree the detail is important, to what degree the tonal range is relevant to my portrayal. Even more importantly, choosing which part of reality to examine is vital! Can a photographer pay no attention to aperture, shutter speed, composition, crop, focus? Can they ignore the possibilities of manipulating the world before photographing it (arranging, building, lighting, removing components until their "metaphysical value judgment" is satisfied? Sure, they can ignore all that. A camera with a timer can make an exposure, no metaphysical presence necessary. But no artist must do so. And even leaving things up to the camera is a "metaphysical value judgment."

You didn't make art. You used tools to apply pigment to a surface replicating a temporary sensory input; a purely mechanical recording of reality.

Saw this a couple of weeks back. 9 other paintings by 9 other folks that look like photos:

http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/blog/10-awesome-images-that-a...

as the article points out photorealism is pointless, except as practice and enjoyment for the craftsperson. What I find interesting in this is that what he has actually painted is not Tica but the imperfections imparted by the little digicam and the inkjet printing technique. That's pretty funny, to reproduce the imperfections of the medium. It's only really interesting from an artistic perspective if the picture were instead titled 'Nikon 8700 Inkjet print'.

Very talented craftsperson.

This guy is amazing. He also was the official artist for the Star Trek: Voyager books.

I can't wait 'til somebody makes the tools to let this guy create holograms of people.

What would you paint if you could paint like that?

awesome

Uh, no, he didn't say photorealism was pointless. In fact, he said the opposite:

> As a style, Photorealism has a few detractors, who often dismiss it as pointless, or non-art. They fail to realize that many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision. The act of merely copying a photograph has no artistic merit except to hone one's artistic skills. Most of my aviation paintings would be impossible to photograph, such as Timing is Everything for example. This painting of Tica is not just a copy of a photograph, but is a product of many artistic decisions, whereas I deviated from the reference photo for more aesthetic appeal.

Your "craftsperson" reference is snide. I have a couple of snide opinions myself, I guess. It's obvious that there is a wide variety of compositions just dying to have photorealistic treatment--subjects where, as the author points out, getting a camera shot would be impossible. Unfortunately, being able to do photorealistic art takes real skill, and that skill appears to be consistently deprecated by the art world.