Those larger-than-life fake humans are downright creepy.

love ron mueck’s works, who I ran into in one of my art books published by taschen.

Those are paintings?? Good Christ. I’ve got friends who don’t look that realistic.

Amazing. That B1 bomber is a sexy plane.

Genius..

amazing, bravo, enthralling {claps, standing ovation}

In regards to the paintings…The real art is in the original photography that was copied.
The painting reproduction is just practice, practice, practice to copy the real thing. (Tip one: get a projector and enlarge the photo onto one´s canvas, then paint over it.)
And to the average person one could take a photo, tweak it in Photoshop, print it on canvas and one could not tell which was digitally manipulated or painstakenly painted by hand.
Lots of artists can paint very well, but they have no ideas of what to paint.
These artists paint very well, but they need the photographs first to give them the idea of what to paint.

Yes , yes…. but what is it saying to me? They’re beautiful and skillful but what is the artistic message - “I can paint really well.”? I do not question the hand or the eye of the artist but I am at a loss when considering their mind.

Perhaps it is just meant to be pretty and nothing more. A homeless person in all their glorious ugliness to me is a statement wasted.

blah blah blah……. waffle waffle……

Unbelievable collection, great post.

Those paintings are obviously fake…how can you people be so gullible.

It was interesting to see the rock band Scorpions album cover in the Denis Peterson video. I can’t believe that the head shot of the gorgeous lady is a painting. I won’t believe it. Did we skip winter and go straight to April?

artists are not fashion designers nor modelers.. lol

what’s the point? sure, most of those paintings are impressive but just take a freakin’ picture. or at least paint something that makes us question the picture altogether. misbelieving your own fooled eyes. i’ve seen the sculptures before. those are pretty cool. check out these ones… http://oomsa.com/node/456

I can’t believe they’re all paintings. No. I don’t believe. Haha. Really.

It’s too real. Photographs, probably. Can’t be paintings.. No, it can’t. Definitely not.

Julian Beever is DEFINITELY worth checking out! He’s based in the UK and is known for his 3-D pavement drawings (with chalk). It’s amazing how his mind is able to comprehend the design so that from a distance they look like they are actually coming up off the sidewalk! Here’s his site:

http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/index.html

Just wanted to give an endorsement of the Taschen books Ian Yang mentioned. I own two.

They are a great way to bring more art into your life! Excellent subject matter and reasonably priced!

(I am not professionaly affiliated.)

that takes a lot of a skill to make that that realistic, but, I prefer art that allows me to use my imagination a little more. I want to be inspired not confronted. I want to see things made in a more creative way…

re: Julian Beever’s sidewalk art

I like Beever’s work, but there’s no mystery. He’s like any other artist who takes a photograph, uses a projector to cast it onto a flat surface, traces the outlines, then colors it in. The only difference is that he projects it onto a horizontal surface rather than the usual vertical surface. The resulting drawing only looks right if you look at it from where the projector was.

I don’t get it. What is the purpose of making a painting that looks like a photograph? First Super Bowl Shuffling crew member Shaun Gayle’s girlfriend is murdered, then the Cub’s lose to Arizona in Game 3, and now this? i just can’t take it anymore.

Excellent craftsmanship, but are you sure it is art? (Just a question; don’t mean to offend anyone.)

painting of tica - airbrush on unknown surface, 2007

this one should be…

painting of tica - pure photoshop, 2007

It’s magnificent. If you don’t think so, you don’t get art.

@Slim: Still life by famous painters is often painted from a live subject. Does that make the painter any less of an artist or there work any less art? Nope. So what if their subject is a model, a photo, or out of the thin air. Can you paint like that? Wait, can you even get CLOSE to painting like that? Could you make a photorealistic work? They have “no ideas what to paint?” Meaning what? They couldn’t paint something without a photograph? Err…does any of this make sense to you?

Nope. Next.

@Pieter: “A homeless person in all their glorious ugliness to me is a statement wasted.” So ugly things are wasted statements. You’ve got a lot of famous, famous, famous paintings with “ugly” subjects to look at before you understand how dumb your comment is.

Ahh…I can do better…

Kidding
Amazing stuff

Richard Estes is considered one of the masters of photorealistic painting, there’s a good interview with him here - http://www.artcritical.com/studiovisit/GPEstes.htm.

The Meisel gallery in NY has a great range of PR artists to investigate further - http://www.meiselgallery.com/LKMG/artistsFrameset.html

Stunning works of art. Superb skills. And for the people who say they can’t see in the artists mind, what about the homeless guy? What possesses someone to paint something so tragic? Ever consider that? Or the beautiful woman?

If they really want to make some money, they need to start painting celebrities naked.

@douche - one word… “LOL”.

The painting of tica is real. There is a website out there that shows with pictures that various stages of completion of that painting.

Maybe some of you doubters should stop doing “the internet thing” of saying “OMG PHOTOSHOP LOL!” to anything that sees to require skill?

Certainly skilful. Some beautiful, some real, some ugly - no less no more.

I know that some of those are really Photoshop - Tica for example. And I didn’t think you could mix oil and acrylic. The linseed oil repels the acrylic. I can’t think of a medium that allows both. And what is the point of reproducing a photograph in oil or acrylic? There is no texture or form. It’s like taking HD video of two old guys playing chess.

This is a beautiful collection of art, with some truly amazing works. anyone who doubts their authenticity needs to do their research better. the beauty of these pieces is that they challenge your perceptions of what is real, and how your mind can play tricks on you.

To Kmuzu,
You CAN use oil and acrylic on the same canvas, many artists including myself have used acrylic for some of the under-painting and then use oil over the top, it is a perfectly common practice. your statement is partly right, you can’t use oils and acrylic together while they are wet; the paint would crack as it dried. But a painting can be made with both mediums, provided you are working in layers and allow them to dry before moving to oils.

Yo,

Unbelievable artworks. Reminds me of my buddy, Justin Meyers of justinmeyersartwork.com. He is damn good, and has some hot naked chicks from our hometown, Blair Nebraska, on there. Well worth your time if you like great art.

Cheers.

I saw Ron Mueck in Brooklyn Museum last year. For some reason I felt nauseous the first minutes I entered the exhibition. It’s a really bizzare feeling with these huge bodies. They look really realistic even up-close.
If you ever get a chance to see a Mueck exhibition, don’t hesitate.

Slim, no offense, but you don’t seem to know a lot about art. If you think a photorealistic painting can be done with a projector, I would just like to point out that I have never seen anyone work like that, nor do I think working like that would help accomplish photorealistic results. One has to know how to blend colours, how to layer paint, how to combine various techniques to achieve an overall realistic effect, it doesn’t just spontaneously happen with a projector and some tracing. Copying photos isn’t talent? Artists copy live models, paint from real objects and other various methods ALL THE TIME, just because someone has imitated a particular object or picture it does not make them any less talented. Painters have been using reference objects and photographs for years, their talent is still profound.

Pieter I don’t know what you consider to be “art with meaning” but perhaps you should look more in-depth to these pictures before handing out criticisms. Remember it took these artists weeks to months to create these, while only a couple of minutes for you to throw out that thoughtless comment.
If a person paints what you deem to be an “ugly” subject, is the painting no longer meaningful or artistic? Really?
And the picture you are referring to of the homeless man is by Denis Peterson and I would like to point out that he is not trying to say what great artist he is, rather each of his pictures focus around diasporas, genocides and refugees around the globe and have been used to bring attention to political corruption in various parts of the world. IT HAS meaning.

And for those of you who insist these are not actual paintings, perhaps looking them up first would satisfy your judgement. I’ve been to exhibitions and galleries and have seen a lot of these paintings up close, I know they are real.

The image of tica is a painting, you can see the production process here, plus, considering the fame of the artist, if it wasn’t a painting, we’d know by now. These images are done in workshops and he also gives classes to students as well. You can view the process of the Tica image here - http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp

lulz

These are great examples of photorealistic paintings and life like sculptures. They must take months of hard work to complete.

If you look at these paintings when your stoned, you think they are real!

One thing that no-one can deny is the talent and dedication shown here. I myself prefer more imaginative pieces of art hanging on my walls, but i still think photorealism/hyper-realism should be considered as an art. Even a lot of the masters of abstract art first learnt the ropes of their trade by painting realistically as they could !

its a skilled and talented and clever facsimile, but it aint “art”
its prosaic and wooden… no visual music, no rhythm, no trace of the artists interpretation, …. therefore not artistic.

these are extrordinary ..this is art ..phot-real ,,thats skill ..cant deny it ,,im sure they could paint any way they want but chose to paint this way for one reason or another..It might not be your thing .,hell its not my hting ..but damn they are skilled masters

Spot the difference/
make the words/
tell the father…
What is anything here for?
Is anything out there?
I’ll take it within,for what is art
if not some sort of merry go round
I need it to get my fill.
Don’t leave this place without trying a few
sideshows.

painting of tica - That wasn’t even taken from a photograph, guys. He painted her live.

I personally don’t care for photorealism as a style. Though it displays an astounding amount of skill and control, it shows very little imagination. You could just take a picture and get the exact same point across. Art is about expressing yourself, telling a message, whether it be clear or not, and painting especially requires imagination. You cannot have true art without imagination, and bound by the confines of reality (which no artist should ever do), these paintings lack everything that is imaginative.

Though again, I applaud the amazing amount of skill required for this sort of work. I just wonder if they can paint anything else, too. Seeing and showing the world as it is is pretty boring.

I love this stuff.
But my face is so huge I bet nobody can paint it. Not even ron mueck’s sculptures can match my massive coupon!
If someone takes a long distance shot of my facade all they’ll get is a top lip.

darkganger–actually you are wrong. a LOT of photorealists used projectors. It is literally just a time saving method. Most of these works are huge, and the artist already knows how to draw..the hardest part is applying the paint anyway, and the paintings still take months. In fact, I have personally studied with a photorealist, Mary Alice Wimmer, who taught us to use a projector. Other photorealists who used projectors include stars like David Hockney, Audrey Flack, and yes, Robert Bechtle. Other photorealists use grids, like Chuck Close. This isn’t new. Does anybody recall the camera obscura? Artists used that method for centuries, including Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Its essential the same thing as a projector. A projector is a tool, it’s like using a ruler to draw a straight line.

To others who negatively commented…I’ve read several books on photorealism and have personally seen a lot of photorealistic work–if you don’t appreciate the style you should at least take the time to educate yourself before rejecting it, because you might change your perception when you learn about these artists and their techniques, concepts, and motivations. Its much deeper than “copying” and its not fake.

But as with everything, not everyone in the world is going to agree. I usually don’t come to the defense of any given art style, but photorealism is one of my favorite genres

The tica ‘painting’ was made with a camera and some photoshop.

Thanks for posting these great works! I am doing a project for an art appreciation class on photorealism and this is a great resource for me! Thanks also to those who provided links in their comments. Yall helped me accurately define this art form and provide many great examples for my class.

No, offence to the blogger, but if all you’re gaining from some of these works is the admiration of the precision and craft involved in making them then you’re not appreciating them in a way befitting the work, mostly in regard to Hanson, Mueck and Helnwein.

I saw Mueck’s work at the National Gallery in Edinburgh and it absolutely blew my mind. It was so realistic. Proud to be Aussie!

For those of you who want to see another amazing photorealist check out Glennray Tutor:

http://www.glennraytutor.com

Can’t believe he was left off, his still lives are unbelievable.

wow… somewhat unbelievable… i took time tryingto notice the unreal parts just to make myself believe they are not real photos

I like artist 8 and artist 2 the most - although not the most photo-realistic paintings, I just like the general look - one looks like an old-timey photo and the other of simple place settings. You can also tell that they are paintings - although I admire the skill of the other painters/sculptors, I don’t appreciate a painting if I can’t tell it’s a painting. 2 and 8 are great.

I have an extremely hard time believing that 7 is not a photo. If it isn’t a photo, then that artist must surely be either aided by a computer or one of the most skilled airbrushers in history.

…i am stoned while lookin at these perty works of art, and i gotta say…i think some ARE real!

you can even see the pores on the mona lisa-esqu lady in pic #7. Don’t believe me? Scroll up ya lazy fetus.

I cnt belive. My congratulation. The original photography was copied,but it’s ok,cuz if sb can do it, he also can paint much many great picture..

Very good job. The best artists!!!