Photo-realism
bryn
realistic. It seem's that photo-realists are the best realistic painters
of the day. I dont quite see how they do it. Does any-one out their
know how I may achieve photo-realistic effects on my own. I have been out
to look for books on the subject and they only had stupid books like
how to paint tree's and flowers or use watercolor etc. Besides some of
Jeff Koons(sp?) work I'm not really aware of too many photo-realistic painters
I would like to have recomendations on who's work is good in this
area or where I may study or find books on photo-realist painting and
drawing techniques!
Thanxxx in Advance
respond on newsgroups or email bry...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
CrtvEndvrs
(bryn) writes:
>>>Thanxxx in Advance
One artist whose work you should take a good look at is Franz Gertsch. A
Swiss painter who lives in Ruschegg-Heubach near Bern.
He has some incredibly large (10x10feet) photo realistic paintings. There
are several paintings when printed in a book are indistinguishable from
photographs and when seen up close are insanely detailed. I walked into
the Hess Collection Gallery in Napa California which has several of his
works from the eighties and from a distance of less than 20 ft you would
swear that they were photographs. Viewing the paintings closeup gave new
meaning to the concept "attention to detail".
Check him out if you like realism.
marc
<<<<<<<<<<<do more of it if you want to get better at it>>>>>>>>>>>
Charles W Haxthausen
Richter, by far the most impressive of these in my opinion, does them
free hand. Initially he used a grid, but soon switched to an opaque
projector. From the projected image he would do a drawing, then paint
the rest of the image in free hand.
After completing that he blurs the image using various techniques.
Charles Eicher
(Charles W Haxthausen) wrote:
Richter a PHOTOREALIST????? Surely you are jesting.
I saw a huge exhibition of his work at the Lannan Foundation, the subject
was the baader-meinhof terrorists, if I recall correctly.. I believe this
was the work you are referring to.. It was all produced after newspaper
photos, in shades of grey, and blurred, as you described. The work was far
more painterly than you give it credit for, and as postmodernist work,
doesn't have anything to do with representation of objects
photorealistically.
I'm especially fond of Richter's work, but I don't think these works are
necessarily typical of his current work, I'm much more fond of the huge
color smears he's producing.. More aggressive, and IMHO, more to the point
of current painting issues..
-----------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@ins.infonet.net
-----------------------
Charles W Haxthausen
>Richter a PHOTOREALIST????? Surely you are jesting.
>
>I saw a huge exhibition of his work at the Lannan Foundation, the subject
>was the baader-meinhof terrorists, if I recall correctly.. I believe this
>was the work you are referring to.. It was all produced after newspaper
>photos, in shades of grey, and blurred, as you described. The work was far
>more painterly than you give it credit for, and as postmodernist work,
>doesn't have anything to do with representation of objects
>photorealistically.
>
>I'm especially fond of Richter's work, but I don't think these works are
>necessarily typical of his current work, I'm much more fond of the huge
>color smears he's producing.. More aggressive, and IMHO, more to the point
>of current painting issues..
>
>-----------------------
> Charles Eicher
>cei...@ins.infonet.net
>-----------------------
If you read my text, you'll see that I don't call Richter anything,
that's merely the topic I posted under. The question was about
painters using photos. Richter calls them "Photo-Paintings." He
speaks of making "photos with other means." The Baader-Meinhof cycle
is really not so painterly, except for some of the larger ones, which
he has scraped a pane of glass across. Since he made his first photo
paintings in 1963, he has used a variety of techniques. His city
views from teh 1970s have a heavy impasto, but many of them suppress
nearly every trace of the hand or brush.
He has made photo paintings since that Baasder-Meinhof cycle, which
he completed in 1988.
I saw the big retrospective in Bonn last Winter, which included
the Baader-Meinhof cycle. It's true most of the recent work, indeed
most of the work since 1976 has been abstract. There was a series of
four in Bonn entitled "Bach" that was simply stupendous.
Charles W. Haxthausen
Williams College
BryanL4695
(Charles W Haxthausen) writes:
I do Realistic paintings but I have done more Photorealistic paintings in
the past. I believe most of the Photorealist enlarge and then trace a
photo with the objective being to duplicate the photo as closely as
possible. One of the easiest ways to do this without letting your
intuition dictate what you think you are looking at is to work on
something upside down. For instance when I'm painting a face I "know" what
an eye looks like so subconsciously Idraw an eye the way I always have in
the past. This usually bears little resemblance to the photograph. Since
in a photograph the eye is usually just a collection of lights and darks
that don't really look like an eye until the whole image is seen from a
little further back. If I really want something to look like the
photograph I just work on it upside down, faithfully reproducing the
lights and darks that I traced, this way I really don't know what exactly
I am working on and am more likely to reproduce it accurately. It's really
kind of a paint by numbers technique.
Bryan Leister
Bob Anderson
>If you read my text, you'll see that I don't call Richter anything,
>that's merely the topic I posted under. The question was about
>painters using photos.
There is the guy that can't draw named Salle that uses photos. :)
Audrey Flack has a kinda how-to- book out if I remember right. Also Malcolm
Moley was one of the proto-photo-realists. Estes also has some great
photo-serigraphs you might look up. The color seperations used in making the
may be available through the printshop <which one I forget>
Doug Bond still teaches at Pasadena City College I beleive. And Chuck Close is
still alive, if not kicking.
Bob Anderson Pair O Dice BBS Austin TX 512.451.7117 Free Art!
bazooka%podbo...@cs.utexas.edu, baz...@well.com OTIS SYNERGY BAZ
"I use your work, you use my work, we use everone's work." -Kathy Acker
Charles Eicher
(Charles W Haxthausen) wrote:
> He has made photo paintings since that Baasder-Meinhof cycle, which
> he completed in 1988.
>
> I saw the big retrospective in Bonn last Winter, which included
> the Baader-Meinhof cycle. It's true most of the recent work, indeed
> most of the work since 1976 has been abstract. There was a series of
> four in Bonn entitled "Bach" that was simply stupendous.
thanks for the update, its especially hard to see a wide range of european
avant garde here in the US, so the Richter show in LA got a lot of
attention.. I'll have to dig up a catalog of the Bonn retrospective.. What
museum exhibited it? It might help locate a catalog if I knew where to
send... I'd love to see a wider range of his work.. If I had one choice of
someone to study painting under, it would be Richter..
Heiko Recktenwald
bonn and on other places some months ago. essentially boring. r. plays with
effects. the best were his collections of photos. i liked them and how they
were presented in groups. there is a book on it, part of the cataloge. H.
Heiko Recktenwald
but the name of the museum is, i live next to it...:
KUNST- UND AUSTELLUNGSHALLE DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
FRIEDRICH-EBERT-ALLEE 4, 53113 BONN
you can try to make a phonecall: +49 0228 9171-200, think that this number
is the best for info. currently they have an big exhibition on east-european
art, with very bad reputation. for most people it is to big. the place is
*not* a museum, for strange reasons. they haven't yet got athmosphere in it.
but sometimes, it is fine. nice people...
-H.
But, as i posted already, the richter-exhibition came from paris and went, as
i remember, to madrid. they will have catalogs there too........
sl...@cc.usu.edu
[big snip]
>>I'm especially fond of Richter's work, but I don't think these works are
>>necessarily typical of his current work, I'm much more fond of the huge
>>color smears he's producing.. More aggressive, and IMHO, more to the point
>>of current painting issues..
>>
> i saw a lot of richters work, the last was this big exhibition in paris and
> bonn and on other places some months ago. essentially boring. r. plays with
> effects. the best were his collections of photos. i liked them and how they
> were presented in groups. there is a book on it, part of the cataloge. H.
Boring? Richter? No way! If I could play with 'the effects' to such subtle
degree as he then I'd be happy.
Anyone seen his works in the St Louis Museum of Art? There's five or
six large panels in one room. The top layer of each is black, with other
colors poking through all over. I was stunned and whenever i go back to
St. Louis I make a point of seeing these paintings. Compared to Richter's
intimate and somewhat frightening photorealist works, these large works are
nothing but monumental and somewhat frightening, vast blurs of imagery -
as if the world were spinning by too quickly.
Nearby in the museum are some Large Anselm Kiefer things, which contain
all the lead and broken glass and old shirts and straw that we've come
to expect from Kiefer. I am not moved by their invocations of the past,
a past that artists like Rico Lebrun more clearly articulated. I can't
say I've looked at the St. Louis Kiefer works very much though (b/c
I was always looking at Richter's work) so there's probably a lot
of subtleties that I missed.
In any case, if ya go to St. Louis check out the museum ;)
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu