This Is Not A Photograph

Artists can be visually pedantic. Who knew?

Not inspired by this even a little bit.

Posted by Joan of Argghh! at October 22, 2009 4:00 PM

Wow....Just wow.
He's like the Michael Jordan of portrait-painting.

Posted by Patvann at October 22, 2009 6:33 PM

That's some mighty fine looking pedantry.

The days of full employment for coked-up pretties with eating disorders and soulless eyes are indeed numbered...Children of Men via Japan.

Posted by monkeyfan at October 22, 2009 8:05 PM

Wow, it looks like a photo, but not quite, there is a tiny extra bit of perfection. I wonder how difficult it would be to make an actual photo like that?

Posted by chuck at October 22, 2009 9:29 PM

To clarify my earlier remark,I am not saying it isn't an exhaustive effort, but it is much in the same league as building a model of the Bismark with toothpicks. It takes a patient and focused mind along with a steady hand to graphically reproduce from a photo something that looks like a photo. And if you can't tell the difference, well that's an amazing feat, a curiosity worthy of remark and admiration for the above-mentioned effort.

I dunno. I guess I'm an art curmudgeon or something. So, I shall appreciate this on an engineering level, for it certainly is impressive.

Posted by Joan of Argghh! at October 23, 2009 5:35 AM

I'm not buying it.
I say the step-by-step was built in reverse beginning with the photograph.

Posted by Ricky Raccoon at October 23, 2009 9:21 AM

bloody impressive by any stretch...

Posted by pdwalker at October 23, 2009 9:29 AM


Posted by at October 23, 2009 12:35 PM

Oh ye naysayers...

Why are you so willing to believe that there's so little talent in the world?

Personally, I think this was a proof-of-concept piece more than anything. I'm willing to bet that the artist usually doesn't expend that level of effort for something so easily created by another means, but instead does something more "artistic."

Posted by B. Durbin at October 23, 2009 12:43 PM

Nice picture. Whoever made it has a skill, but hardly a unique skill.

Photographic accurate painting has been done for at least two centuries. Painters consider precision unimportant except as a demonstration of drafting skill.

Today, with computers, it is easy to get the colors right. That was difficult in the past.

Posted by K at October 23, 2009 5:16 PM

Master craftsmanship has a quality of its own. I may not know a lot about art, but I sure do appreciate superior craftsmanship when I see it.

I suspect that 99.99% of self-proclaimed "artists" couldn't paint like that if their lives depended on it.

Posted by rickl at October 23, 2009 5:29 PM

The earlobes are a bit odd, donĀ“t you think?

How long before these techniques are misused for criminal purposes? A really good fauxtographer will be harder to spot than the amateurs who doctored news photos during the 2006 Lebanon war.

Posted by El Gordo at October 24, 2009 2:22 AM

That is an absolute crock. Bullshit.

Posted by ahem at October 24, 2009 12:36 PM

You'll notice that he doesn't show any of the 'process' steps, only the finished stages. Plus, he is able to paint details to a level that aren't detectable by even the best human eye. Again, bullshit.

Posted by ahem at October 24, 2009 12:42 PM

Nope. Sorry. It's for real and it is what it says it is.

Check out the links beyond the link to Blair Art School in the item. You'll see.

Posted by vanderleun at October 24, 2009 1:21 PM

Incredible. But it's not a photograph. However, it proves that still, man is the master of the machine, and not the other way around. Strange way to prove it.

Posted by RiverC at October 26, 2009 6:37 PM

What's even better is that's a real painting, like with paint and everything. he's an airbrush artist.

Posted by Charlie Martin at October 28, 2009 2:46 PM

Nonsense. Magnify enough and you can tell it is a photo. The timeline illustrations are also nonsense.

Posted by S at May 31, 2010 5:19 AM