1. says

    It’s amazingly life-like, an impressive technical achievement, but I don’t really get the point of it.

    The standard Art History line is that the invention of photography freed artists from realism- they no longer needed to strive for strict accuracy (or even forms and figures at all) in their paintings because photography could supply that.

    So Kyle Lambert spent 200+ hours making a portrait of Morgan Freeman that looks just like a photo. Why not just take a photo? In fact I think the “painting” is based on an already existing photo so other than demonstrating technical mastery there’s really no reason for it at all.

    I’m not downplaying the talent and skill necessary to make this, just questioning the point of it. Artists should (IMO) make art, not attempt to match other technologies.

  2. johnny says

    It would not be that difficult (although very time-consuming) to do what’s called a “reveal” using Photoshop’s masking techniques so that the final details are revealed rather than painted.

    You could easily separate out the highlights and pin-head-sized details and simply reveal them as you remove the masks, little by little. Even doing that would take some talent, but I don’t understand what the point would be. I’ve worked with Photoshop for years and there’s a variety of ways to mimic “painting” this photo. The point here must be notoriety instead of showing actual talent.

    Skill = doing a task extremely well, near perfect

    Talent = skill directed towards creating something unique and new.

  3. Lars says

    I see it more as a technical achievement rather than an artistic one (as noted above, it is basically an exact reproduction of an existing photograph).

    But it is a stunning achievement nonetheless.

  4. Dave says

    Umm, that was amazing. Unbelievable that commenters either 1) criticize it as “non-art” or 2) conspiricy theorize that it is a fake. First of all, of course this is meant to be a display of technical achievement: who the f*** wants to hang a pic/painting of morgan freeman in a museum? Secondly, sure it COULD be a fake, but why read any news at all if you are such an unbeliever. Maybe its all fake!

  5. johnny says

    Sorry, not bitter here, (how could one be bitter about this? LOL) but I don’t like people faking things and then calling them “original art” when they’re clearly fakes.

    As a commercial artist who has been working with digital software for nearly two decades and having done 100’s of digital retouch jobs on photos… I can tell you with zero doubt that the final image is an exact duplicate, down to each and every pore, mole and hair and their placement. That’s simply not possible to do freehand.

    Yes, it’s a technical achievement (of sorts) but that’s about it.

  6. UFFDA says

    What this system might be very useful for is copying images of museum or art gallery objects which may be “protected” – i.e. unavailable for reproduction. You can publish your own renderings of objects, but often not the official photo of same. No longer, perhaps, must you write for permission to use, or pay for same.
    It frees up visual information.

  7. UFFDA says

    PABLO – tell me more. I am putting a book together of specific objects from museum collections and need some guidance.

  8. Rrhain says

    I’m reminded of the old cover for Corel Draw. For those who don’t know, it’s a vector-based drawing program and thus, is more geared toward mathematically-based drawings (lines, circles, gradients, etc.)

    Well, Corel had a contest for artists to show off their stuff. Someone submitted an image of Hedy Lamarr, done completely as a vector image. It’s photo-realistic and it impressed Corel so much, they used it as the cover for the software, displacing their iconic hot-air balloon.