Just a Simple Portrait?

Nice photo isn't it? Yeah, except that it's a detail from a painting.

The idea of this painting by artist Dru Blair was born out of a portrait workshop he taught in 2005. In that workshop, he presented his students with a photo he had taken of a local model. Their goal was to paint this photo and reproduce it as best as they could. After the class had ended, he decided to test the limits of his own painting skills and took it upon himself to recreate the photo, with pretty startling results.

The level of detail is simply stunning. For example, to reproduce the skin a combination of about 20 colors were used and even subtle visual elements in the original photo such as the halo effect on the earrings have been preserved in the painting. According the artist, 99% of the painting was done using airbrush, while other techniques involving colored pencil, x-acto knife and eraser were also used, especially to add realism to fine textures of the skin and hair.

Visit Dru Blair's site here

Comments

[Shaun Apple]

I like it. Very attractive.

[aps]

I can do that also except that in my painting 99% will be done will be done with an inkjet printer

[James Nunn]

Why paint like that? If you want a completely accurate, warts 'n all image of someone, take a photograph; an artist should give their impression of something/someone, not a direct copy

[Michael B]

Congratulations, you've failed Art History.

See Photorealism movement of the 1970s.

[Brad]

James,

It's only an exercise. This is a testament to skill.
It's like martial artist's that break boards for show. Wooden boards can't fight back, so what is the point? There is a lot of training and discipline required to attain such an accomplishment. While this may not fill your requirements for what art is historically, this is certainly an incredible display of skill. Something good art usually requires. However, something tells me you're not quite there yet. So your lack of vision/understanding should be excused.

[Carlos B.]

Wow. That's amazing. Just the hair roots and the skin texture makes this a very complex painting.

[victoria]

i'm really not impressed by this.
its all technical skill and no creativity.

see: early chuck close if you want photorealism with a pulse.

[tech]

vaovvvv :D

is it painting ?

[Duncan]

Well, it certainly is good for airbrushing. But I have to ask why? there's no soul to it... painting should only be part representation, the rest should be the pouring of your soul onto canvas.

i ttoally agree about chuck close. this is boring and i don't care about it at all. and why would you compare chopping wood blocks and painting? that's just stupid.

[Elixeo]

I agree. This is a good example of technical skill but I wouldn't call it artistic skill.

[Blkpoetx]

This is nice if it was real .... where is the texture of the canvas?

[S00N]

If any of you sad folks did this you would be bragging too. The realism is that most of you can't get the big picture of life to begin with let alone paint a masterpiece.

This is amazing.

[Chris Morris]

Please, people, get away from the idea that artists "should" or "shouldn't" do something, they don't, won't and shouldn't ;)
The artist shows great skill, and probably learnt a lot during the intense observation needed in this picture.

[Fen]

I find this completely boring. When you look at that what else do you feel apart from. "Wow, nice technique...." This kind of "art" is nauseating.

[Paradym]

Their goal was to paint this photo and reproduce it as best as they could. End of story. Such whiners! You idiots couldn't do it.

[feh]

you're mostly a buncha arsles: "it's technical but not artistic" and the like, feh to the lot of you. go try it yourselves, why don't you? supposing the fellow isn't cheating, that's an incredible work of dedication and talent. you all can hang for your awful attitudes.

[jposh]

No texture? How do you paint without texture?

[chkaffer]

can no one appreciate the incredible skill it takes to create something like this? sure art is about emotion, but there is something to be said for the physical capabilities of a person to recreate something like this. most people couldnt sketch this woman and have it turn out recognizable. art has to be more than just putting your soul into your work, or every emo-kid's whiney three chord song would be equal in value to beethoven's symphonies. real art takes real talent, and that is what this painting is showing

[G]

I am blown away by how judgmental "artists" seem to be. Art is probably one of the most subjective concepts there is. It is infuriating to hear people say "art should be ". There is absolutely no "should" in art. That flies in the face of the entire concept of art. Art is whatever the artist decides it is, regardless of whether the audience likes it.

If you are bored by realism or aren't interested by it, why spend the time to post a comment about it? I hate cubism, but I don't get on blogs/forums about cubism and make outrageous claims that it isn't art or that it "should" be something else. I just don't look at it! It's like saying pasta isn't food because you don't like the way it tastes. That's simply idiotic.

[pixels]

I see pixels.

[joe]

Simply put, you are all fools if you think this is a painting... It's not a painting.

[not U Again]

I call bullshit.

[QuranTP]

@pixels,joe

Yeh, that's usually what your monitor's screen is made of...

[Vinnybagadonuts]

I can't zoom in close enough to make a call but at this distance I call bullshit as well.

Agree with the Chuck Close statements, also agree that its more a testament to skill and nothing else.

[DjiDji]

People who don't appreciate this kind of talent are obviously not artists.

[Wyngaed]

This is a fake. There is no way this is a painting. There is no paint texture or canvas texture at all.

[no]

Not to sound like a harsh critic or anything but I'd like to see a comparison shot. I'm trying hard not to call bullshit but there is just too much detail in there. There is a lot grain and noise, and even if it is air brush it's far too clean. There should be some blur at least in some parts there.

If this is a reduced image from a much larger original I'd like to see a sample of the original.

There is nothing in that image that says, this is a painting, but there are lot of things in that image that says, this is a photo.

[evan]

IF this is real, i am impressed, the level of skill mixed with any creativity will enevitably result in a masterpiece. However i am looking out for a follow up story saying this was a hoax and we are all morons for believing this. I personally know two artists capable of similar level of realism but knowing how long it takes i understand why you normally dont see anything this fine.

Also some extra info would not go amiss? Watercolor? Acrylic? inkjet? Original photo for comparison, a more detailed close up?

[salvadordali]

It's funny to me how emotional people get about something that they haven't actually seen!
I would reserve judgement about an artwork until I've ACTUALLY SEEN IT IN PERSON, and verified that it is real. LOL!
Many artists who have been to museums and seen a lot of art will tell you that they haven't actually seen a painting until they see it in person.
If this is real, it is extremely skillful and indeed amazing art (for the art snobs here) but also, it may be very large scale and then reproduced very small on your screen, thus you aren't seeing anywhere near an accurate representation of it (for the naive, starry-eyed emotionalists).

This is a wicked good idea on how to get on the top ten on Digg....this is a photo!

[jeremy]

Awesome, now try without photo reference :)

[David Allen]

pointlessness ad absurdum

[TremorX]

Anyone who says "it's good but it has no soul! It's not art! It's not creative!" don't have the technical skill to produce anything like it, and are just jealous.

That being said: it's good, but it has no soul! It's not art! It's not creative! I can't do that good and I am jealous!

there is no "paint texture" because he used an airbrush for most of the painting, also with an airbrush you would probly want alot smoother surface than a canvas, read people

[Alex]

...cause there is nothing interesting or noteworthy of exceptional technical skill. This is probably about as equally uninteresting as an idiot savant who can play any song he's ever heard perfectly after only listening to it once, since he's not being creative by making his own music -obviously thats not impressive.

Jeeze you guys are difficult... stop being so darn critical - he wasn't trying to be creeative!!!! infact - he was trying NOT to be creative! To all of you who criticize this piece for not being creative - those types of comments are about as smart as saying "this painting sucks because its not abstract enough" Go loosen up and appreciate something for what it IS not what its NOT and what you wish it was - you'll probably enjoy life more.

[LordPhear]

An excellent display of talent.

For those that can't see the life in the image, try actually looking at the image.

For those that want originality, go be original yourself. Complaining about someone elses lack of it is about as un-original as you can get.

Those that cliam there isn't a point, obviously are choosing to be clueless. The point was stated - it was a test of skill.

Nothing in this world actually has a point beyond someones desire or will to do it.

Kudos to the artist.

[MrBuilder]

I think a lot of the skeptics are assuming that as a painting it should be in oil paints on a primed, gesso canvas.
It's probably done on a flat surace. As noted by the story, it was done with airbrush which doesn't produce a dimensional paint surface.
Therefore the notion that you can't see these qualities doesn't mean it isn't a painting.

[Justin]

Simply amazing (if it's real).
If you don't think this is "Art," I challenge you to google Jan van Eyck and tell me the difference.

[mdm-adph]

to all those decrying this as "uninteresting" or "not art" -- fine. continue to put crap like Jackson Pollock's shite up on your walls and call it "art" -- I'll keep something like this.

[Jwalker]

Did any of you actually go to his site and read the page he put together about this painting? It took him 65-75 hours to complete it. Also, if you look at his other artwork, you can definatly see his talent.

http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm

[Devin]

If you don't think it's art, don't call it art. Call it a study in technical painting. The painting most certainly IS real, I have met Dru Blair and followed his work for years. His photo-realistic "art" has been used in advertising all over the world, as he can do things with an air brush that no one can do with a camera. I call that creative.

[Dug]

that painting was so real I puked myself

[maia]

I disagree with the people who disagree with the people here who are saying that art needs to have a soul.

Art does have a purpose and function, it's job is to stimulate certain parts in your brain and the optimal result of experiencing art is to reach "higher level" in what it means to be a human. Sounds like bullshit and cliche-ridden but i honestly think that.

Art and sports need to be separate. I would categorize this painting into "sports"-section because it doesn't touch me in anyway except that makes me think its photoshopped, after that the 2nd emotion is envy if he really knows how to paint like that and how he can have so much time to put this amount of effort into something so-ordinary like this.
True art brings you amazement and makes you learn something about yourself or "higher things".

[Matt]

Well this is an interesting article, but it would be more relevant if they person who wrote it posted a scan of the painting, rather than the photo it was based on.

That said...I just noticed something really strange, I clicked the small image and it opened in a new window, which I dragged over to the side so I could continue reading. I don't know if this is true for smaller monitors and laptops, but when I was looking at the text, and seeing the image from the side of my eye, it changed dramatically. I thought it looked spooky, even evil.

[mo]

This is definitely legit. Dru Blair is well known in the airbrush community. He had a step by step for this portrait in Airbrush Art and Action magazine a few months back, and he uses an airbrush and illustration board for his work. I used to study airbrush for over 10 years and it is possible to achieve this effect. Dru uses opaque white paint to "buffer" his colors so that they come out very accurately.
For all you guys in Cali, there is one prominent airbrush store in Anaheim called Coast Airbrush that sells the equipment as well as has classes (or they did a while back) taught by Noah and Craig Fraser who are well known in the airbrush community for creating metal art and car art.
visit www.noahfineart.com for all you guys that want more artistic flavor.
check out my myspace for samples of my art to see that I'm not calling BS:
www.myspace.com/491425
These comments are coming from someone very familiar with negative comments regarding photo-realistic painting. Having went to 4 years of UCLA art school where they value concept over technique, it was difficult to get any decent critiques. While my work impressed all the students, it did get chewed up by the teachers. It was definitely frustrating to have spent hours working on a painting, and having other artsy-fartsy students get by with shitty-looking paintings that they "felt" was saying this or that. It's been a few years since school, and now I can appreciate the criticism - but I also haven't painted since.

[killjoy]

Awesome technical achievement in this piece.

as to the debate;

art can be anything, and while the artist may try to dictate the ultimate translation and meaning of a piece, it ultimately is a viewer's decision as to meaning, profoundness, et. al.

to those who're all pissing on the parade of technical achievement; feh, you've invested far too much need to see something in art, that's what religion was invented for, ingrates.

this one time, i posted a picture on the internet and claimed it was a painting. then a bunch of nerds debated it endlessly.

[Steve]

While this may not be "artsy", it is 100% preferable to Jackson Pollock's paint splattering, Mark Rothko's colored blobs, Franz Kline's black smudges, Cy Twombly's chicken scratches, Picasso's ugly figures or Dekoonig's finger paintings.

Modern art of that style has NO practical use. Art of THIS style, of classical/photo-realism, can be directly useful in every field imaginable. I'll be honest, I don't get anything out of the "modern" artists aside from anger at the many beautiful classical artists who are nowhere near as popular as those who create art that is indistinguishable from a toddler or monkey. Science-fiction/fantasy artists like Michael Whelan, Boris Vallejo, or Gary Tonge, among many others, are better skilled than any of the ones I mentioned in the 1st paragraph. Has anybody heard of them?

[Bucky from bloggingwv.com]

Stunning!

I like how his website breaks it down into the steps that were used to create the painting.

This text http://www.lost.eu/4aeb2

[Jaime]

This is just the kind of artist I would not feature in my blog:

http://artworkfromtheworkplace.wordpress.com

There is justno way he could do something like this while at work...

[Logic]

This picture in no way demonstrates the true quality of the painting. Who's to say this painting isn't actually a 5'x 5' painting scaled down to blur and hide the strokes and imperfections by forcing such a large image onto such a small monitor? You need a to post a small section of the actual size.
That being said, the guy does have a strong skill. I'm an artist myself and while I understand picture this lacks creativity, I realize and others should too, that without skill creativity may never leave the head of the creator. Crativity is the idea, skill is the ability to get that idea outside the head. The guy obviously has the skill down. It may be safe to say that if he has an idea, he spends his time on that idea and now how he is going to realize the idea.

[Improvilaw]

Ditto on the Chuck Close comment. Now he's an artist!

[Joe Wang]

I'd do her.

[Dennis Eldridge]

This harkens to a small group of artist who strove to create truly photorealistic paintings in the 70's and 80's and no doubt until today. I can't remember the artist's name, but one memorable painting was of a street scene in New York. At first glance a rather uninteresting, if well composed, photo, upon closer inspection one could detect the faintest brush strokes.

So, this effort is nothing new, but certainly very beautiful and done with great talent.

[Fen]

I think its correct for people to voice their opinions about this piece of work if they like it or not etc. There are some positive and negative comments which can be looked at from either way. Although for people to argue that this is a spectacular piece of art I find quite astounding.
I feel art is all around us and just about anything can be art. What I feel strongly about is that I notice many people mentioning how people are "jealous" of this mans work, which leads me onto the next thing, I very much doubt one is jealous of this work although that depends on the person and if they wish to have their art based around technique and little else. Ok ok, I'm going on a bit, basically my point which I wish to be made clear is.. Art is not just about technique it is about an idea, the ideas which are conveyed from a piece of work and the thoughts which are provoked as you view the work. Flame me if I'm incorrect but what does this piece of work make YOU feel or think about? Art can be the simplest of a creation yet make the onlooker become lost in the ideas around it. --I am not saying this isn't art--

[Happy LOL Day]

As long as this is not all the person does, its a test of skill but not what I would hang on a wall. I love art that changes what we see everyday when we open our eyes, and gives us another way of looking at things. Cameras document this "look", but when you have a brush and paint, go crazy! See things in a new way.
:)
http://www.happylolday.com

[RICK!]

The naysayers about the value of this art are a bunch of cads. Those who can do, those who can't become critics.

As for some of you who called 'fake', did you bother to click on the link to the artist page to see the step by step and close up scans or that it was published in a air-brush? No? Are you experts in photoshop, airbrushing, forgery? No? Shut your pie hole next time.

From the artist site, which it seems most of you bothered to read:

"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...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."

[Pinget]

There is a local artist who does this and gets $20,000 per painting. Amazing work. Her name is Jeannie Maddox. http://www.jeanniemaddox.com/

[Ah Chew]

Fake

[pablo Olive]

This is so obviously not a painting. It's a bad masked image retouched in photoshop. Painting my ass.
P-

If this isn't fake, then there's only one word to describe it: stunning.

[higgs]

It isnt stunning its really crap. Photorealism is usually considered only a practice method for any real artist.. Why would you waste your time?. And by time i mean this 'painting' would have taken the artist hundreds of hours to make it exact.. If it is real, and merely and excercise..this dude has some OCD. issues and tries to hard.

[Dhermit]

um that's a photo. look at the CA in the hair against the white background in areas of high contrast. That's a shitty, out of focus photo. The only reason it even "looks" like a painting, is because she painted so much god damn makeup on her face.

[T]

I call baloney. This is a hoax.

[T]

I take it back... Not a hoax.... I think. I looked at the site and it seems legit.

[tomek]

Anyone that criticizes this painting is obviously blind and doesn’t have an understanding of art or what it means to be an artist. Any true artist understands that one work does not represent the artist - and this work is obviously an exercise in skill. The creativity comes from the idea. Great artists across time such as Da Vinci studied and drew thousands of models etc in order to tone their ability so that they could not be held back by a lack of sill when they were trying to be creative. Mona Lisa would never have been painted had Da Vinci never studied all the muscles in the face and drew them a thousand times.

I find in general that people who criticize art are either insecure about their own ability to create it, or are jealous because they think they can’t create art. Once you embrace yourself as an artist and commune with the muse - you know what it’s about.

Congrats on a wonderful piece of work. And to those of you who want to judge this person’s creativity - why don’t you go look at a collection of their art that has been painted for this purpose.

[Daniel]

Anyone who says this is not art, is not an artist. OR at least not a very good one. You see a great photo and scream PHOTOSHOP. You see a great technical painting and scream PHOTO. If you can't beat 'em, scream fake. You can't gain respect by bringing down the reputation of those who're better than you. In the end, once you get down to you, you look worse than those you've dragged down. People aren't stupid. How about you trade in your 14 yr old attitude, shut your trap and try opening that brain of yours. Pull out all those ignorant opinions you seem to be so proud of and perhaps try seeing the world not as it revolves around you for once in your life.

[nobody]

NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[indya]

Linked this article on http://www.bestofindya.com

[barbara chan]

it is Just a Simple Portrait when you don't have to recreate it. i'll stick with black and white and even that is extremely difficult.

[torie]

Don't we have anything better to do? Fake, not fake, art, not art. It's interpreted differently by each viewer. What some like, other's don't. Welcome to Art 101. Get over it & appreciate it for what it is & what it might mean to you & stop forcing opinons on those who don't want to hear it. Don't like it, don't believe it, don't look at it.

[Rejoy]

Its just so perfect that each aand every fine details have been covered

[Bitcloud]

Just so noone reading these comments is confused:

anyone who says "this is lame" or "i'm not impressed" is a hack... they have never, and will likely never create any artworks of emotion *or* technical value or else they would have some appreciation for what goes into it.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but those sort of comments always clutter discussions like this and they always come from bitter children.

Any way you look at this, it demonstrates a genius level of craftsmanship.

[mekki]

Fake.

Look at the photo where they are all standing around with the "painting".

The bottom of the "painting's" shirt is smudge and has no detail. And yet the finished painting above does? Why is this? Because they had to get rid of the watermark.

Plus, the painting is being held at a slight angle as can be viewed from the top yet the painting is still the same straight on style as above. And the bottom of the canvas in the standing around photo is straight as an arrow. Why have the top of the canvas sloping slightly but the bottom even?

It's a fake.

[me]

thats not a painting u tit.

[Vincent]

Bitcloud, if you actually look closely you'll see that the picture of the finished painting has been cropped from the painting as we see it where they're standing next to it.

As for the angle, it's very slight so wouldn't effect the image very visibley.

[thomas]

Craftmanship is also art...I dont really like Rubens en Breughel paintings but they are still art. I hate the fact that current artist and students -not all of course- want to create art without knowing about craftmanship...they say it restricts their creativity...pfft lazy that's what I call them. Even Picasso can paint as Breughel. He had to before he could get to the real essence.

[Let's use our brains!]

Well first of all, looking at a painting on a computer monitor isn't really all that telling of it's actual quality. Considering The human eye has a picture quality in the hundreds of megapixels, and a 800x841 picture on the internet is NOWHERE near anything that quality, you'd really have to see it in real life. But I'll buy it, I've seen some of that photo-realism stuff in person. Impressive talent, there.

[len cochrane]

that is most certainly the most incredible photorealistic portrait i have ever seen. being an airbrush artist myself i can only hope to achieve this level of realism.

dru blair has been teaching and sharing his knowledge and skills for many years. he is an incredible artist and a teacher and he is a huge inspiration to a great many artsits.

to those of you who critisize this work. im trying to see your point of view but i just cant get my head that far up my ass.

THIS IS AMAZING WORK !!!!

[andy]

I DO NOT believe that is real. Like someone said before, there is no texture,. The only way that could be done is if each layer you painted was molecule thin.

[Bobby Ward]

This is fake. No question.

total bullshit

[KnightofChrist]

If real this is Art, and quite a fantastic piece of it too. I would remind the naysayers and put me downs that in the early history of photography, in the eyes of the art world photographers were NOT considered artist, and photo were not art.

Many of the same things where said of photographers and their work that have been said of this Artist and his work.

The naysayers were wrong then and their wrong now. This piece took eminence skill and talent to create.

If created an exact copy of something is not art then all of photography is not art.

[SamuelDurkin]

We can see he has the technical skill to reproduce exact copies of reality.

That's a great start. Now he needs to try and not copy reality, but add to it as well. Bringing something of himself to his work.

The artist creates something new. A machine copies. (although I belive they will be creative one day)

[Farkov]

Man, not only are you people gullible, but you don't even drink the water when led to it.

mekki's comments still hold true. Check out http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm for the picture he/she's talking about. Look across the top of the protrait and you'll see it sloping down towards the right quite significantly in comparison with the wall behind it. But if you look down the right hand side it appears to be dead straight with the same wall. Also note the bottom inch or so of that right hand side, you'll see that it blurs and kicks out a bit. This holds true with the blurriness seen across the bottom inch of the whole portrait, which is the only part of the portrait that's real. It's a shame Clovis's package is covering the left side of the portrait so we can't see the same thing happening there.

All this aside, just look at the 'artists' in the picture. It looks like they've randomly selected 3 people from a Nascar crowd.

It's a fake.

[etan48]

Let's say it's actually real and the artist spent countless hours producing an image that everyone swears must be a photo.

What's the f**** point. Buy a camera.

[Nicole]

f*** Bullshit thats a piece of crap!

[C. Fiend]

I'm inclined to believe it is real--it definitely looks like something that an airbrush, combined with an exacto knife would be able to achieve. There are a few areas (namely by the model's right ear when it's close to the earring) that makes me want to believe that it's done.

While it is impressive (and yes, art, no matter what people say) I'm not a fan of airbrushing; give me oils and acrylics any day. (Do people understand that it's airbrushing, those that say it is not real? Look it up before you deny the possibility!)

[Stevieeeee]

I always read comments from 'artists' when I want to laugh. There is never any doubt that the pretentious meter will be beaten to death. I used to review artist's portfolios, and if ever there were a group that overestimates their own talent, it is artists.

Admit it, this guy has more skill than at least 99.9% of those having an opinion here.

"Look at that idiotic olympic athlete...he's running in circles; he'll never get anywhere." Where's the creativity?

"What a putz! He climbed Mt. Everest--there's nothing but snow and the top of a mountain there!" Where's the creativity?

*sniff, sniff with my nose in the air* But it's ART dahling, must be creative and groundbreaking like all art...ALL I TELL YOU, it all must be groundbreaking to be of value, see? Portraits too, must be groundbreaking to be appreciated! Groundbreaking!!!!

[transient]

amazing.

[Gary]

Check out the link non-believers:

http://www.airbrushaction.com/item.php?sku=BIDEC06&url=

Those claiming this is an exhibition of technical skill and not "creative" art are also the same people who've dropped out of art school because "it was too confining for their talents" and ended up working in a bookstore or a coffee shop while they dream of their own artistic success that will never materialize.

I went to college with you people. Until you dropped out, anyway. Those folks bad mouthed everything that was a challenge or required a good amount of concentration, study, trial/error and skill.

Yes it is a very impressive show of technical skill but it also requires a very developed and sharp artistic eye to recreate from real life to the 2D surface in that microscopic detail.

If its not art, then the person who did this is not an artist; he is a producer. That would mean then that anybody could do it if they have technical skill. Any seasoned artist with years of experience will tell you you have to have the "artist eye" to pull it off no matter how much technical skill you have.

This is technicall skill AND art. Nuff said.

[qergtbqergb]

zoom in,... its just a photo...:S

[Phantom Seraphim]

Well, the way that I see the two sides on this debate are as follows:

1. Not art. It's an exact duplicate of a photograph, and from a 2-D source (because a traditional portrait is 3-D, you have the person sitting in front of you). It expresses no emotion, and has no creativity, the main factors of art.

2. Is art. It shows an immense amount of skill, as well as discipline in being able to create something so exact and precise. It uses a medium on a surface (yes, it can be done so well, but I'll get to that later) and the artist did in fact put time and emotion into doing such a piece.

As far as the people claiming it's not real, I beg to differ. Card-stock paper is quite a smooth substance, and has no comparison to high grade Bristol paper. If you look at the artist's website (it's embedded in the comments somewhere) you'll see the steps that were taken to make this, and I would like to ask how you could "fake" those. Not to mention it being featured in a trusted magazine source claiming it as not being a photograph. There is a possibility of it being fake, I give it that, but it's so slim as to be dismissed.

As far as what art is, I can't change anyone's mind as far as their perspective on the subject. Mine, however, is that it is a dedication to piece that you put emotion, time, and skill into. Not all outlets are art, and not all art is an outlet. I do believe that this shows emotion. It personally gives me a warm feeling, somewhat close to how you would feel after a standard soccer practice (or something similar) and you get back into the car to go home. Makes you feel older, and more experienced (as what the artist probably felt when they did this piece) but at the same time gives you a familiar feel.

As far as the whole "creative vs. non-creative" part in art, I believe this is just a different direction to go. At the beginning of the century, many people dismissed Picasso's work as art, and part of the way through, the same happened to Polluck. They claimed that "It didn't represent anything tangible, therefore it is not art.". I see this as being a rather defunct way of looking at it now, but I see many people still doing it, as well as people saying the same thing on here, in the words of "It doesn't represent anything un-tangible, therefore it is not art." It doesn't make sense to me personally.

All of this is my personal opinion, as many of you have different ones, with them being on both sides of the spectrum. People who decide to criticize me on my comments and opinions do not obviously respect me as I respect them. Everyone in this topic is neither wrong, nor right, but they just are expressing their opinions on the matter. Call me childish on my thinking. I could care less. I'm 15, so it may be true. But please don't tell me my opinion is wrong, since it's a different point of view that you may not be accustomed to.

[Robert McLendon]

Yes, but why not reproduce an interesting photo instead of a prosaic one? Photorealism is about more than just replicating something...the selection of what to paint should also be involved. I would consider this to be craft, although skillful, not art. Simply saying that "it takes amazing skill" doesn't make it art.

[Murray Henderson]

I went t Drus class a couple of years ago and let me set all of you straight, Dru painted that and I witnessed him during my 5 days in North Carolina. He was also working on some non photorealistic art that was amazing.He also mentions many very highly paid and very well known artists namely Carl Brenders . His wildlife art is photo realistic and he sells art all over the world. Any of you who don't believe enter his class it's $450 US ,I'm Canadian and I flew down and it has put me into another level.I use his technique in everything I do now.(not quite as photo like)buty close.

[Chris]

people - this was an exercise -
for the record - my favorite artist - Rembrant - his technique is tied directly to his artist skill and vision - point being - technique for rembrant, is tantamount to his artistic side - GET IT???

Dru blair is a true artist - who could out paint 99.9% of you folks reading this - in ANY style - abstract to cubism - and beyond - you all are just jealous.