[ellyagg]

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.

[movix]

Somewhere, there's a forum full of artists arguing the finer points of programming.

[jacquesm]

I was wondering what this posting did on HN anyway, but after your enlightened observation I will invest some time in searching for this forum.

[anigbrowl]

For some reason the airbrush has never been seen as a fine art tool - perhaps because it doesn't come in contact with the canvas or paper. I think SFphotoarts is dismissive not least because Blair is dismissive of photography as an art, arguing that it's a mere mechanical recording. Then again, if you click on the 'paintings' link it's odd (to me) that 90% of his work is militaria, a surprisngly narrow choice of subject.

Of course, while many things re impossible to photograph for one reason or another, visual effects artists and compositors specialize in making it credible - as someone with an interest in the latter, I find his airbrush approach extremely interesting.

[pbhjpbhj]

"many photorealistic paintings are not mere copies of photographs, but interpretations of reality based on the artist's vision" That's what photographs are so a photorealist image is unlikely to differ. A photo is not itself reality.

I've seen videos not unlike your F111 ("Timing is Everything").

This artwork undoubtedly takes huge skill - I think that it is deprecated because it doesn't appear to say much beyond the actual image. It doesn't appear to convey deeper meaning, resonating with something of the social climate and the person of the viewer as [I consider] good art should.

[dan_the_welder]

The "Art World" has almost completely removed themselves from craft and have chosen to focus on ideas.

The system is now that popular artists are management with a crew of lower tier artists who function as manufacturing.

Artisans, including air brush artists, are now by definition not Artists, because to celebrate your technical skills is to be seen only as a technician by the "Ideas are Art" crowd.

Similar enough to the management/programmer divide.

[randallsquared]

It seems to me that it's consistently deprecated because it's harder than anything else visual artists do, and there's an objective measurement of how well it was done. I don't have a very high opinion of most art, you'll gather. :)

[yters]

If someone can paint anything they want photorealistically, I'd say that's much better than photoshop.