need your opinion..

[chano]

since this is a photog community..i might as well ask you guys a question.... i am a member of deviantart.com and have been since 2002, i recently came across a deviation that sparked some interest in weather it was really a digital painting or not... for one.. i have never seen such a realistic photoshop painting...here is the original post..

http://http://claudiasutton.deviantart.com/art/Anthony-63365641

so yes.. in my own opinion...i believe that this is a PHOTO..that has been retouched with photoshop brushes....

whats funny is that she claims in her comment replys to have painted this from a blank canvas in PS. another thing she states is that this is her first ever realistic PS painting.

ok.. if i gather my facts right...her first ever..original piece of realistic art in PS and it comes out amazing? does that sound right? you give me your judgment...but honestly i call BLUFF.

here is a the original photo i found on photobucket website....alongside her supposed PS art.

[LEATHERNECK]

I go with your opinion.........the proof is in the original photo you found.

[CaptainTom]

I put the images back into PS. I checked the shadows/highlights which will open up the shadows on a photograph, but there shouldn't be any shadow information on an image drawn from scratch.

She did not draw this from a blank slate. In fact , it is not even a really good fake.

[chano]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

I put the images back into PS. I checked the shadows/highlights which will open up the shadows on a photograph, but there shouldn't be any shadow information on an image drawn from scratch.

She did not draw this from a blank slate. In fact , it is not even a really good fake.

i didnt even think about that... good catch.

[AndrewCCM]

I am amazed that so many people are kissing her buttocks. That is a terrible fake or I am completely useless as a critic. OR... Maybe both.

[johnastovall]

Who cares and why does it matter? David Hockey and Charles Falco suggested and presented to convincing case (to me) Renaissance old master used optical devices in their work.

It's art. Stop worrying about media and technique and worry about the art.

Suggested reading:

Secret Knowledge (New and Expanded Edition): Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters (Paperback) by David Hockney

[AndrewCCM]

Not sure where taking someone else's image and claiming that you painted an exact replica from scratch that you didn't art.

Like I said...I could be wrong... but I am 99.99999999999999999% sure that is just the same darn picture being passed off as an original recreation.

[chano]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Who cares and why does it matter? David Hockey and Charles Falco suggested and presented to convincing case (to me) Renaissance old master used optical devices in their work.

It's art. Stop worrying about media and technique and worry about the art.

Suggested reading:

Secret Knowledge (New and Expanded Edition): Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters (Paperback) by David Hockney

im all about the art...but to claim it as an original piece from scratch seems a bit much. Its more like a re-touched photo. she could of easy placed it in the photomanipulation category..because thats exactly what it is.

would it be fair for me to take the mona lisa and touch up a few things..and claim it as my original piece from scratch and people praise me for it?? i dont think that would go too well in the art community..

[David_3]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Who cares and why does it matter?

Because unless she took the picture, or had permission from the photographer, it's stealing. That's why it matters.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by David_3

Because unless she took the picture, or had permission from the photographer, it's stealing. That's why it matters.

No, it's call
Derivative Art....

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by chano

im all about the art...but to claim it as an original piece from scratch seems a bit much. Its more like a re-touched photo. she could of easy placed it in the photomanipulation category..because thats exactly what it is.

would it be fair for me to take the mona lisa and touch up a few things..and claim it as my original piece from scratch and people praise me for it?? i dont think that would go too well in the art community..

See Below Deriviative Art.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

No, it's call
Derivative Art....

No, it's called fraud. "...she claims in her comment replys to have painted this from a blank canvas in PS."

It obviously isn't. That's fraud, whether it is derivative or not.

[ekohl]

Anthony....... that brought back some memories. I did 3 regionals with them in the early 90's they were a nice bunch of guys. anyboody remember the "Bronco Bowl"? It closed after the RHCP's played there... the opening acts were Peral Jam and the Pumkins. Those were the days......

[David_3]

Derivative art can also be stealing, depending on location, John. A very similar incident recently happened to a Canadian member of the Nikon Cafe. Someone painted a copy of one of her photographs, and was selling it for profit. It was a clear violation of Canadian law. Eventually the RCMP got involved, and confiscated the painting. I believe it and any profits were eventually given to a charitable organization. Just because it's art, doesn't make it legal........or right.

Originally Posted by johnastovall

No, it's call
Derivative Art....

[chano]

I just think it should be re-categorized as a photo manipulation. It's still art, just not the type she claims.