"trupaint" or other pseudo-portrait techniques
chi...@gmail.com
Anyone on the list familiar with TruPaint system or others like it?
I've seen a few portraiture service websites that seem to use a process
to quickly translate images onto canvas.
A guy named Jerry Schuster developed the system of that name
(http://www.jschusterportraits.com) though I understand it's a
technique that is somewhat common. According to Mr Schuster, he has
furthered this common process and refined it. He also offers courses,
but I'm not sure his refinements are worth the premium he charges to
learn them.
Surely they're not just taking an image into Photoshop and applying
artwork brush filters since somehow they produce a finished piece in
oil (or acrylic?) on a large canvas.
I'm sure there will be folks on this list who absolutely hate the very
direction this concept is going. I'm of two minds myself since
sometimes the effect is quite nice- but other times the work looks like
a bad Polaroid... in paint. (proving of course that technology cannot
replace an artist... but in an artist's hands technology can produce
beautiful work).
I'm also thinking that producing my own work with a similar process
might serve as a fast track to realizing my vision in an oil medium
since I'm already somewhat proficient with the electronic media.
Thanks for any feedback.
-Drew
Mani Deli
My answer to this is, what counts is what the image looks like, not
how its done. I say use any available method.
>Greetings,
>
>Anyone on the list familiar with TruPaint system or others like it?
>I've seen a few portraiture service websites that seem to use a process
>to quickly translate images onto canvas.
>
>A guy named Jerry Schuster developed the system
He didn't, it's used constantly.
> of that name
>(http://www.jschusterportraits.com) though I understand it's a
>technique that is somewhat common. According to Mr Schuster, he has
>furthered this common process and refined it. He also offers courses,
>but I'm not sure his refinements are worth the premium he charges to
>learn them.
The paintings look like dull painted-over photos.However, in the hands
of someone who has more knowledge this can look beautiful.
>Surely they're not just taking an image into Photoshop and applying
>artwork brush filters since somehow they produce a finished piece in
>oil (or acrylic?) on a large canvas.
>
>I'm sure there will be folks on this list who absolutely hate the very
>direction this concept is going. I'm of two minds myself since
>sometimes the effect is quite nice- but other times the work looks like
>a bad Polaroid... in paint. (proving of course that technology cannot
>replace an artist... but in an artist's hands technology can produce
>beautiful work).
If you study art history any new technique has its detractors.
>I'm also thinking that producing my own work with a similar process
>might serve as a fast track to realizing my vision in an oil medium
>since I'm already somewhat proficient with the electronic media.
Do it!
Thur
<chi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135293178.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
what is illustration, what is realism and what is art questions.
Just as painting colours on a canvas while ignoring all other aspects
of what has/had become art looks wrong to many of us, then the
simple representation or copy of an image can look as wrong.
We must all come to our own conclusions in the end, but for me,
these photographs, modified to look like a painting are fakes,
and like a meal without taste, they fail to fulfil.
A portrait, like any other piece of art is empty if it does not contain
something of the artist's interpretation.
Incidentally, I would every time choose this :-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/19/queen.portrait/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4541388.stm
to one of those art-fake things.
I know, it's a very poor portrait, but Rolf has given his own take
on who he thinks he was painting, and as such it is art.
--
Thur
chi...@gmail.com
art, and I'm sure it will continue without end.
The other side to my post was about the physical technique itself.
Anyone familiar with the *how* of transferring image to canvas?
Is it common to print and actually laminate the image to the mount?
(prime it with a clear medium??) and then just lay pigment over it like
a kind of paint-by-number? I still see challenges ahead with mixing the
right colors, blocking out foundation areas and then laying on the
highlights and shadows (though now with the reference image obscured by
the base).
In other words, I'm trying to determine whether this is even worth
pursuing as a technique since it seems to me it could be as difficult
and time-consuming as doing it the traditional way. Or even - and I
can't believe I'm using Rolf Harris as an example - using Rolf's
method. :-}
Or am I missing a component to the technique?
Thanks again for the comments!
-Drew
chris
link to a short article on it, but I can't rememebr more specifics:
http://humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=g&p=a&a=i&ID=572
What it does is use oil paint like a regular printer uses ink; after
the iage is laid on you can then muck it up a bit to make it look
personal. I think you wind up with the the worst of both worlds.
Another popular method is used in Asian art factories in particular is
to use any simple print method to get an image onto a base (eg,
"giclee" or ink-jet onto canvas), and then match colors as you paint
over it (like the paint by numbers). Or you can use a slide projector
to project images onto a canvas, and paint from that (eg Mary Pratt,
who has done quite well, IIRC).
Just remember that talentless art like the above is a hugely
competitive market, and unless you are very lucky you are not likely to
recoup your investment.
CB
chi...@gmail.com
I'll look more into these techniques, though I don't foresee a
paint-printer in my future, I find it interesting how much resistance
such techniques encounter.
As if art is better for the suffering of (or want of) a steady hand. As
an art "consumer" I wouldn't care if a work was particularly difficult
for the artist to produce or not. Whether the painter had a stye in his
eye and a crushed right hand at the time wouldn't change my opinion of
the work. Does it make the finished work better (or worse)? I don't
think it matters... other than perhaps the story the owner will tell to
brag on the piece to his friends.
Would it matter if Rodin actually took casts of live models (as he was
accused of doing)? Would it matter if Cezanne crapped his work out of
his arse? The end result is what it is. Technique and process is all
about getting it from concept in someone's head out into the world for
others to see (and sometimes pay for).
If it's good, it's good. If it's crap (other than Cezanne's) then it's
crap (whether someone pays for it or not).
Well, that's just my opinion. Thanks again for the responses.
-Drew
chris
Re concept versus implementation, I think one thing that viewers want
from a work of art is a sense of the artist as an individual behind the
work. Maybe that gets lost with too much technology; i.e the sense of
the entire work being an individual's signature no longer applies. For
example, generally you can look at a drawing by any of the great
representative painters, like Rubens, or Holbein, and pretty much guess
who the work is by.
OTOH, most of this photographically based work is much less dependent
on the artist's own idiosyncracies. I have no problem with people
liking it (to each his own) but I think it makes it more, rather than
less, difficult to sell. Provided of course the artist has the
requisite skills to do the work in the first place.
Cheers;
Chris
Ashley Clarke
I think it`s fine as long as the "Artist" doesn`t hide the technique in use.
Where a lot of mass-producers go wrong is trying to pull the wool over
peoples eyes for a fast buck, only to be revealed later as a kind of fraud.
I`m sure there are countless examples from the media about this kind
of thing?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
radi...@aol.com
You see these fake portraits done by
computer, where you get a photo taken, and then
the Photoshop takes over and "pencilizes" or
"pastels" everything, so that it's supposed to
look like an artist actually did it, but it's no where
close.
But, perhaps in the near future, someone
will invent a computer painter where the brush is
mounted on a CNC machine, and known shades of
paint are available, and the computer can vary the
amount of pressure of a brush stroke, to mimic the
variation of the "human" touch, so that a computer
generated painting might actually look decent, and
with enough variation and computerized "interpretation"
thrown in to make it something more than just an
ink-jet printout of a photo.
It will be interesting to see what happens....
Mani Deli
> But, perhaps in the near future, someone
>will invent a computer painter where the brush is
>mounted on a CNC machine, and known shades of
>paint are available, and the computer can vary the
>amount of pressure of a brush stroke, to mimic the
>variation of the "human" touch, so that a computer
>generated painting might actually look decent, and
>with enough variation and computerized "interpretation"
>thrown in to make it something more than just an
>ink-jet printout of a photo.
>
> It will be interesting to see what happens....
>
It will happen and the artzy fartzies who can't do much of anything
will have an even biger shit fit.
radi...@aol.com
And what about the pseudo-realists-who-
copy-Dali, or the people who think that all you
need is "skill", and not originality?
What will the realists do when a computer
can whip out a portrait with just as much "emotion"
and "realism" as they can? Christ, a computer
can already do photo-realism by default!
Thank God not everyone is a realist!
What a fucking boring world that would be!
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 25 Dec 2005 23:50:49 -0800, radi...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > But, perhaps in the near future, someone
>> >will invent a computer painter where the brush is
>> >mounted on a CNC machine, and known shades of
>> >paint are available, and the computer can vary the
>> >amount of pressure of a brush stroke, to mimic the
>> >variation of the "human" touch, so that a computer
>> >generated painting might actually look decent, and
>> >with enough variation and computerized "interpretation"
>> >thrown in to make it something more than just an
>> >ink-jet printout of a photo.
>> >
>> > It will be interesting to see what happens....
>> >
>> It will happen and the artzy fartzies who can't do much of anything
>> will have an even biger shit fit.
>
> And what about the pseudo-realists-who-
>copy-Dali, or the people who think that all you
>need is "skill", and not originality?
Originality and anything that follows is useless unless you have the
foundation of skill and craft as can be clearly seen in your work.
> What will the realists do when a computer
>can whip out a portrait with just as much "emotion"
>and "realism" as they can?
They'll use computers.
> Christ, a computer
>can already do photo-realism by default!
-in the imagination of anyone as unskilled and uncreative as you all
it requires is a computer.
> Thank God not everyone is a realist!
>
> What a fucking boring world that would be!
The computer can already do chimpanzee style decoration and all sorts
of abstraction. What the computer can't do is create the sales pitch
and the hype to sell it. That requires skill and creativity which most
artzy fartzies lack.
radi...@aol.com
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2005 03:08:13 -0800, radi...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Mani Deli wrote:
> >> On 25 Dec 2005 23:50:49 -0800, radi...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > But, perhaps in the near future, someone
> >> >will invent a computer painter where the brush is
> >> >mounted on a CNC machine, and known shades of
> >> >paint are available, and the computer can vary the
> >> >amount of pressure of a brush stroke, to mimic the
> >> >variation of the "human" touch, so that a computer
> >> >generated painting might actually look decent, and
> >> >with enough variation and computerized "interpretation"
> >> >thrown in to make it something more than just an
> >> >ink-jet printout of a photo.
> >> >
> >> > It will be interesting to see what happens....
> >> >
> >> It will happen and the artzy fartzies who can't do much of anything
> >> will have an even biger shit fit.
> >
> > And what about the pseudo-realists-who-
> >copy-Dali, or the people who think that all you
> >need is "skill", and not originality?
>
> Originality and anything that follows is useless unless you have the
> foundation of skill and craft as can be clearly seen in your work.
>
Too bad there is absolutely no skill in your
work!
> > What will the realists do when a computer
> >can whip out a portrait with just as much "emotion"
> >and "realism" as they can?
>
> They'll use computers.
>
Like you do! Because you lack the
skill! And then still, your results suck!
> > Christ, a computer
> >can already do photo-realism by default!
>
> -in the imagination of anyone as unskilled and uncreative as you all
> it requires is a computer.
>
> > Thank God not everyone is a realist!
> >
> > What a fucking boring world that would be!
>
> The computer can already do chimpanzee style decoration and all sorts
> of abstraction. What the computer can't do is create the sales pitch
> and the hype to sell it. That requires skill and creativity which most
> artzy fartzies lack.
Learn to Draw, Fuckhead!