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.