[Totally]

mmmroight.. michaelangelo used a projector.. in his fresco.. on the ceiling of the sistine chapel? wow the amazing projector technologies of the 16th century could reach all the way to the sistine chapel's ceiling! heh I think not =P
Oh.. and Michaelangelo was a scuptor who reluctantly accepted the commission to do the sistine chapel because.. well... he would rather sculpt than paint.. I would assume it's kinda hard to use a projector of any kind when you're sculpting, regardless of the whether or not the technology was around at the time heh.

[Kjetil Nystuen]

The famous artist michael angelo? Hmm, never heard of him..

Where is he from? Ita Lia?

[pixualize]

Oh yeah - and for all you fine art fanatics - Mike was a "Commercial artist". He got commissions and got paid to do what he did. Projector or no - when the deadline looms - the real artist will use whatever tools available to make the piece work. Check out most cover artists.

Paint-over or no - I happend to like Bill's brushwork for Photoshop. I think he acheived a very nice natural media effect which is kinda tough to get outta Pshop. I agree it would probably be better if the lighting were more imbellished or even if it was all done in cool colors, like moonlight, instead of the same warm colors of the "ref" pic.

Anyway....flame on....

[worthless_meat_sack]

Pix is right.

I would have loved to hear the pope/art director's crit.

And working in stone requires careful planning, and the use of many mechanical devices to transfer measurements accurately, both from studies and life. I remember reading that with cloth studies they would get it right on the model and impregnate it with some type of hardening material. Makes sense to me.

[Socar MYLES]

I'm actually quite impressed by the fact that this fellow admitted that his picture was a smudgejob, and in good humor, too.

To someone who hasn't been coming here long, and who isn't very experienced, it's not always apparent that this sort of thing is generally spat upon. Some of the work here IS of a photorealistic nature, and a newbie can be forgiven for thinking that there are a few paintovers lurking. (Even if there aren't.)

When I was first learning to draw, years and years ago, I used to masking-tape drafting vellum (the translucent kind) to a stretched-out coathanger, shine a bright light through it to make it almost transparent, and then 'trace' whatever was on the other side. (Usually people trying to sit still, rats not trying to sit still and screwing up my pictures, and random household objects.) The work produced was certainly not 'art' by any means, and I wouldn't have gone showing it to anyone, but it was...informative, in its way.

These days, I wouldn't be caught dead tracing a model through a papered coathanger, partly because I finally realized just how silly I looked doing that, but, hell...what I'm trying to say is that everyone's got to start somewhere. At the very least, this fellow must've learned something about brushstrokes.

[Frosted Flame]

Wouldn't it be nice if Craig would comment on this? hehe (wink, wink. nudge, nudge)

[Joachim]

how can the procedure of how a painting was done be so important to everyone. If you guys would have been so darn impressed if he would have managed to copy this picture 100% like this without tracing, I think you should be just as impressed about it now. For me, I think duplicating a photo without any changes or the artists personal "thouch" or innovation (like mucha and many others do), then it isn't that impressive at all, even if it looks totally real, it will always just be a smudged & unclear version of the original, and you have it all there when you paint and you don't need to think about "hmm how should I solve this or that"...-and it cannot be used to anything useful, because the photo will always be better and cleaner.

though, now it seems like I bash down everything called copying, "I don't!"...like there's a close line between genious and insanity, it's the same with when it's a copy that earns it respect or not. But this picture isn't one of them in my opinion, and I always thought when I think "what" is "ok" or "not" is easy and rather obvious, but it's always so hard to explain it without sounding inconsistent...so I know this may sound provocing, but then I haven't managed to explain myself properly....I guess that's why I've stopped picking on pictures on this board that I think has only been made for the reason to make people impressed that you can make a picture almost like a photo and create a doubt in peoples mind on how much it is your own creaton or not. but it seem to work, and it seems like so many people here think THAT is what you should strive for to become a good artist, so maybe it's just me that have miunderstood the whole consept of drawing and painting (?)

[ June 15, 2001: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[Socar MYLES]

Personally, I take realism as being incidental in a good piece of art, rather than integral. To elucidate: Sure, I can draw realistically. Once in a while (usually when being paid to do so), I do settle into photorealism, and turn out something slick and worldly.

But the pieces I'm really proud of are the ones that couldn't possibly be real. I like there to be more than a hint of the preposterous in my work. I'd rather draw a sky full of impossibly puffed and elegant clouds than something that could have come right out of a matte painting. (No offense to all you brilliant matte painters out there.) I like to draw claw-like fingers and stupidly long noses, and rats with tails that are twice as long as they have any business being. It's fun.

Realism is best when it isn't the be-all and end-all--when the rat, for example, is nicely shadowed and believably proportioned, but still has the long-ass tail and gargantuan nose. I want to get to the point where I can draw something completely impossible, and still have people believe it.

Heh...all right...over-tired Socar...way off-topic...but there it is.