I don't approve of this fad for speed paintings, which get people expecting an artist to paint the Sistine Chapel during an advert break. I don't see the point in rushing to complete in a few minutes a picture that could potentially last forever. Speed painting is an affront to the dignity of art and artists.
Well...Gordon, I don't think this image was done in 5 minutes...this is an obvious time lapse presentation (closer to a couple hours). But in general speed painting is a very useful exercise, similar to gesture drawing or thumbnailing. It trains you to quickly find the general layout in terms of value and color, the mood and activity of an image.
And as Coyote says, there are much much better digital media guys out there than this one, including among those that do speed painting. Far more subtle and dynamic image makers. And a Transformers still...really? One of the worst and most disappointing films I've ever seen. Topped only by the sequel.
some better ones http://mandrykart.wordpress.com/ goodbrush.com http://www.virtualgouacheland.blogspot.com/
There's a lot of confusion about the definition of 'speed painting'.
Speed painting is a style that's generally attributed to Craig Mullins as it's pioneer. It actually doesn't have anything to do with 'speed' as the paintings can take hours, but achieves a spontaneous appearance.
One day, a video on youtube popped up. A time lapsed video of someone painting an actor from the TV series 'Lost'. This video was labeled with 'speed painting'. This started a fad, and time lapsed digital paintings streamed in by the dozen, all calling themselves 'speed painting'.
Its strange, but he paints portraits for people from photos. What is strange in that? They sends him jpgs with people on photos, then he paints that almost perfect as he saw on photo, and then he send this back. They receive what they gave. Almost perfect version of photo with digital autograph. I wonder how much he takes for that :D
eh... i dont think painting in photoshop really proves anything... thats what i used when i didnt know how to paint/ draw. i know it has its place in illustration and entertainment design, but i traditional art will always have its place in my heart haha
I think the problem isn't photoshop. The simple reproduction of a photo can be done for an exercise or used as reference but i don't understand what is the artistic aim of a only copy something which is already a copy himself
Here is a Q and A copied directly from DiMattia's website:
How long do you spend on each painting? And did you paint them by memory or by copy?
It will depend basically of the difficulty of the painting. More details = more hours of working. Between 3 and 7 hours if I want to be “really fast” (well, no so fast), but if I’m looking for a cool and detailed finished painting, it will take more obviously.
I am surprised at how much backlash this post elicited. I wonder if years from now digital painting will be recognized a more of a legitimate art form.
Personally, I like it. Regardless of what might be said, doing something like this takes skill. He clearly has ability and an understanding of visual art.
Recall that Michelangelo once said "A man paints with his brains and not with his hands." I know that my sculptures look like my paintings and my drawings. I have a certain degree of understanding and skill and that is reflected in all my work, virtually independent of the medium.
Also, don't many artist use photographic reference? We know from this blog that the great Normal Rockwell did: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/10/rockwell-and-camera.html
This discussion reminds me of the "sellout" post: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/selling-out.html
Interesting comments, everyone, and thanks for the links to other demos.
I love watching compressed time videos of people working in all sorts of mediums and subjects. To me it's mesmerizing. Unless there's a compelling voiceover, five minutes seems like an ideal amount of time, whether it's time lapse or not.
It seems harder to notice what degree of time lapse is used in Photoshop. It traditional painting, the artist becomes obviously hyper.
What makes a good demo? (Any you all certainly recommended some great ones). It seems to me to be a mix of risk, decision, and steady refinement.
For me, what makes a good demo is the insight into their process.
I mainly watch demo's to learn and having them scribble a random head or from random reference isn't as interesting as pulling together a finished illustration where time has to be spent nailing down the concept, reference and drawing.
Finding out where and how they define the shapes, values and colour gives me plenty to think about and test with my own process.
If there's a voice over with good info I don't mind spending hours watching, but if it's without there has to be good music or editing to make sure that I don't get bored when they're noodling on something minor.
I'm really indifferent to Photoshop time lapse paintings, I think they're interesting to watch and as James says, a 5 minute video is ideal. Here's one of Tim O'Brien painting a 30 minute portrait of Jack Dempsey which is time lapsed into 3&1/2 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAk_53lQcwU
Tim is an oil painter, so for me, this demo was extremely helpful, seeing how he lays down paint and the order at which he plots down his color was so interesting to watch.
I think a great demo are the ones that aren't sped up, time lapse demos are more like showing off ;) Seeing a demo in person, for example, is way more helpful. One where you can ask the artist questions while they work, seeing how they apply their knowledge and what tools they use.
It would be good to see Megan Fox in a photo very sexy showing few clothes, she has very beautiful eyes. With a painting like that and the generic viagra it might be a good stimulation.
X2! Thx for the heads up Mr Gurney!
ReplyDeleteI thing it thins kind of photoshop paining sux better style present Craig Mullins http://www.goodbrush.com/
ReplyDeleteI don't approve of this fad for speed paintings, which get people expecting an artist to paint the Sistine Chapel during an advert break. I don't see the point in rushing to complete in a few minutes a picture that could potentially last forever. Speed painting is an affront to the dignity of art and artists.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure he's not painting that fast -- its a time lapse recording.
ReplyDeleteWell...Gordon, I don't think this image was done in 5 minutes...this is an obvious time lapse presentation (closer to a couple hours). But in general speed painting is a very useful exercise, similar to gesture drawing or thumbnailing. It trains you to quickly find the general layout in terms of value and color, the mood and activity of an image.
ReplyDeleteAnd as Coyote says, there are much much better digital media guys out there than this one, including among those that do speed painting. Far more subtle and dynamic image makers. And a Transformers still...really? One of the worst and most disappointing films I've ever seen. Topped only by the sequel.
some better ones
http://mandrykart.wordpress.com/
goodbrush.com
http://www.virtualgouacheland.blogspot.com/
I might look up more later, gotta run.
I'd like to know how fast he really did it. Now I'm not sure if I should be impressed or not...
ReplyDeleteThats just bad on so many levels...
ReplyDeleteSlow art day? :)
I know the video is time-lapse, I was making a general point about making speed of production a virtue in art.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen Transformers, and have no burning desire to. As it happens, however, I am equally guilty of copying a still from it featuring Ms. Fox.
I think this is the real deal when it comes to speed painting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6voFFGZJI0
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of confusion about the definition of 'speed painting'.
ReplyDeleteSpeed painting is a style that's generally attributed to Craig Mullins as it's pioneer.
It actually doesn't have anything to do with 'speed' as the paintings can take hours, but achieves a spontaneous appearance.
One day, a video on youtube popped up. A time lapsed video of someone painting an actor from the TV series 'Lost'.
This video was labeled with 'speed painting'. This started a fad, and time lapsed digital paintings streamed in by the dozen, all calling themselves 'speed painting'.
Its strange, but he paints portraits for people from photos. What is strange in that? They sends him jpgs with people on photos, then he paints that almost perfect as he saw on photo, and then he send this back. They receive what they gave. Almost perfect version of photo with digital autograph. I wonder how much he takes for that :D
ReplyDeleteI was thinking... what's the point? If it's a painting from a photograph...what's the point of 'photoshopping' over it??
ReplyDeleteeh... i dont think painting in photoshop really proves anything... thats what i used when i didnt know how to paint/ draw. i know it has its place in illustration and entertainment design, but i traditional art will always have its place in my heart haha
ReplyDeleteI think the problem isn't photoshop.
ReplyDeleteThe simple reproduction of a photo can be done for an exercise or used as reference but i don't understand what is the artistic aim of a only copy something which is already a copy himself
Here is a Q and A copied directly from DiMattia's website:
ReplyDeleteHow long do you spend on each painting? And did you paint them by memory or by copy?
It will depend basically of the difficulty of the painting. More details = more hours of working. Between 3 and 7 hours if I want to be “really fast” (well, no so fast), but if I’m looking for a cool and detailed finished painting, it will take more obviously.
Speed paintings are kind of an art unto themselves, and probably shouldn't be confused with finished illustrations.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I love love LOVE leventep's speedpaintings:
http://leventep.deviantart.com/art/Bridge-in-autumn-154197668
I am surprised at how much backlash this post elicited. I wonder if years from now digital painting will be recognized a more of a legitimate art form.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like it. Regardless of what might be said, doing something like this takes skill. He clearly has ability and an understanding of visual art.
Recall that Michelangelo once said "A man paints with his brains and not with his hands." I know that my sculptures look like my paintings and my drawings. I have a certain degree of understanding and skill and that is reflected in all my work, virtually independent of the medium.
Also, don't many artist use photographic reference? We know from this blog that the great Normal Rockwell did:
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/10/rockwell-and-camera.html
This discussion reminds me of the "sellout" post:
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/selling-out.html
To each their own, I suppose =)
If maybe, someday, humans all had cyberbrains and could directly link up to computers, then I wonder what painting would become like...
ReplyDeleteAll due respect, there are far better timelapse videos lying around.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan of Dan Dos Santos's trailer for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqjWP18hPHE
Wonder if he could do that on a unicycle.......
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments, everyone, and thanks for the links to other demos.
ReplyDeleteI love watching compressed time videos of people working in all sorts of mediums and subjects. To me it's mesmerizing. Unless there's a compelling voiceover, five minutes seems like an ideal amount of time, whether it's time lapse or not.
It seems harder to notice what degree of time lapse is used in Photoshop. It traditional painting, the artist becomes obviously hyper.
What makes a good demo? (Any you all certainly recommended some great ones). It seems to me to be a mix of risk, decision, and steady refinement.
For me, what makes a good demo is the insight into their process.
ReplyDeleteI mainly watch demo's to learn and having them scribble a random head or from random reference isn't as interesting as pulling together a finished illustration where time has to be spent nailing down the concept, reference and drawing.
Finding out where and how they define the shapes, values and colour gives me plenty to think about and test with my own process.
If there's a voice over with good info I don't mind spending hours watching, but if it's without there has to be good music or editing to make sure that I don't get bored when they're noodling on something minor.
I'm really indifferent to Photoshop time lapse paintings, I think they're interesting to watch and as James says, a 5 minute video is ideal. Here's one of Tim O'Brien painting a 30 minute portrait of Jack Dempsey which is time lapsed into 3&1/2 minutes:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAk_53lQcwU
Tim is an oil painter, so for me, this demo was extremely helpful, seeing how he lays down paint and the order at which he plots down his color was so interesting to watch.
I think a great demo are the ones that aren't sped up, time lapse demos are more like showing off ;) Seeing a demo in person, for example, is way more helpful. One where you can ask the artist questions while they work, seeing how they apply their knowledge and what tools they use.
Thanks for posting, James!
Just found this video featuring Greg Manchess via. Irene Gallo's blog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxhhnzHjggQ
ReplyDelete@Gordon Napier
ReplyDeleteTry pulling the stick out of your ass for a minute or so. It'll probably be a totally new experience for you.
It would be good to see Megan Fox in a photo very sexy showing few clothes, she has very beautiful eyes. With a painting like that and the generic viagra it might be a good stimulation.
ReplyDelete