An excellent insight into an extremely talented individual who exudes passion. Your series continues to make me think about my life and others in so many ways. Thanks Henry.
This is lovely, great work on this series Henry, and Robin, you have such a wonderful mastery of your painting. I'm not usually one for realism, but I see your style is beyond that, a new direction entirely, and I love the way you think about digital culture finding its way into the imagery, what it means to distort imagery, what if the distortions are still painted and not added in digitally, it highlights the skill it takes to create these effects. Lovely work.
I think they look like paintings. Maybe at first glance you’d mistake them for a photograph, but seeing that it’s a painting and seeing the level of mastery of painting the artist has is an awe inspiring experience.
Renaissance painters often used dummies for extended sessions with a dress or pose.....A camera or dummy both simply allow the artist flexibility with expenses, scheduling, & in some cases such as landscape.....weather. Suggesting that a painting is less artistic or less expressive simply because the model was photographed instead of returning for several sessions is pretentious. Viewing the image with consideration of composition & message is for us to experience, but the process should always b about the artist. What inspires the artist on their journey should never b critiqued. If u simply dont enjoy realism, that obviously, is always ur prerogative.
With photo realism or hyper realism, the artist paints from a photo with such exactitude, that it is difficult to say which is the photo and which is the painting. Personally, I do not see the art in this style. It can be technically brilliant but it is in no way expressive. When a painter produces a photorealistic piece,only the challenge of making the subject look exactly like the real object is met. There is no art to it. It’s a form of showing off technical skills. “See what I can do!?” There’s no interpretation of reality. There is only reproduction of reality.
@@hulkslayer626 - good question. If the photo is one of high quality, the photographer gets credit and praise for photographic ability. But the hyper-realistic painting of that photo has virtue only as a work of skill and technique, not of art.The painting is still a good 'image' but its being painted is an act of technique only.
@@renzo6490 Hmmmm.... I see your point. But I don't know if I can full get on board with it. Just 2 examples. First, I have seen at least 1 artist who takes multiple photos of a subject with different lighting and angles etc... and uses bits and pieces of each photo to make a final composite photo of the best attributes of some of his shots, and then does a hyper realistic painting of that digitally created rendering. ....now that I just said all that, I'm sure you would agree that he is an artist as well, so that was a bad example lmao But anyway, he is still just painting a photo when you boil it down. I would definitely consider him an artist. Secondly: Saying that anyone who paints a photo to look just like a photo is not an artist, and is just displaying skill is kinda harsh against all painters. That's insinuating that a painter is not an artist. It separates the ability from the vision. Idk... like I said, I definitely see your point, but I think I might believe that being an artist is a combination of both skill and vision.
@@hulkslayer626 - First, let me say how refreshing it is to be having a respectful exchange that hasn't descended into abusive language ! Ok. Maybe I can clarify the distinction that I'm making between being a painter and an artist. ( and I speak from personal experience ). If I make an exact copy of Edvard Munch's ''The Scream'', I have shown that I am capable of mixing colors to match the original,applying the paint with accurate brush strokes, and reproducing the shapes and proportions I see. That makes me a skilled painter. But only Munch can be credited with any vision or creativity and that makes him the artist. __________________ But here is another conundrum on a different topic: Say I am a photographer. I set up my camera on a street corner. It is programed to snap a shot every 15 seconds. After an hour, I have hundreds of images. I look at them all and I select one that has an excellent composition, great shadows, interesting figures etc. It's a great picture. Does that make me a great photographer or great editor? Do I get credit for taking the picture or for selecting it ??
Its not that simple....If a painter has a live model come in & pose, such as the one holding the giant ball of foil....in history, that process including the composition is not only considered artistic expression, but can vary from one artist to the next depending on their choice of subject. With the camera, its no longer necessary to use a live model through the entire process. Even renaissance painters would use dummies for extended sessions with a dress or to complete a portion of the pose.....Both, dummies & cameras simply give artists freedom & flexibility with scheduling, expenses, & in some cases such as landscape.....weather. Many artists still prefer to paint from real life, outside....or using models. But to suggest that the exact same image is less expressive because the model was photographed first instead of repeated sessions in person is pretentious. Art is for the viewer to enjoy but the process belongs to the artist.
I paint what the customer wants. I could paint loads of stuff that is of no interest to anyone else. What's the point ? I've got to pay the rent and put food on the table to eek out my old age pension
I remember when he (and his fiancé?) moved to Los Angeles a few years ago. It's great to see that he's still happy and producing art.
This is not something you learn it is a gift you have.
Wow what a great inspiration. Great video and superb talent if I may say. Thank you for sharing your amazing gift.
I'm so in awe of this level of talent.
You are a grand master without a doubt.
Thank you.🙂
An excellent insight into an extremely talented individual who exudes passion. Your series continues to make me think about my life and others in so many ways. Thanks Henry.
Thanks so much Andy!
...and don't forget that the view from your window looks pretty inspiring...
This is lovely, great work on this series Henry, and Robin, you have such a wonderful mastery of your painting. I'm not usually one for realism, but I see your style is beyond that, a new direction entirely, and I love the way you think about digital culture finding its way into the imagery, what it means to distort imagery, what if the distortions are still painted and not added in digitally, it highlights the skill it takes to create these effects. Lovely work.
Thanks so much for such detailed and supportive feedback Louis! Really appreciate it man.
These videos need and deserve more views.
This is an absolutely wonderful video.
Inspiring video and great content, his film wrap painting serious reminds me of Dutch artist Tjalf Sparnaay - great work so much talent
Very inspiring ...Thank You !
These videos are great Henry!
Thanks so much Elspeth! So glad you like em. More to come soon!
could you add links to find his work online please? ig, websites?
As always Great work Henry!!
As always thanks so much Marco!
Great video, very inspiring, and it's great to hear the advice from Mr Eley.
What medium do you work with?P.S. I'm new to your channel...
Justin Thyme My guess (in case he never answers) is acrylic.....Just from what I see in his studio & what I dont see.
Truth, when you solve a problem/situation, your only meant to move to the next. God doesn't need us to be settled with what we just accomplished.
I reached out to him and he gave me some great advice as a Artist good dude
Another photo-realistic artist...
WOW!
WOW
Tjalf Sparnaay like this !
" Often mistaken for photographs" , then what's the point?
I think they look like paintings. Maybe at first glance you’d mistake them for a photograph, but seeing that it’s a painting and seeing the level of mastery of painting the artist has is an awe inspiring experience.
Renaissance painters often used dummies for extended sessions with a dress or pose.....A camera or dummy both simply allow the artist flexibility with expenses, scheduling, & in some cases such as landscape.....weather.
Suggesting that a painting is less artistic or less expressive simply because the model was photographed instead of returning for several sessions is pretentious. Viewing the image with consideration of composition & message is for us to experience, but the process should always b about the artist. What inspires the artist on their journey should never b critiqued. If u simply dont enjoy realism, that obviously, is always ur prerogative.
Kitsch
With photo realism or hyper realism, the artist paints from a photo with such exactitude, that it is difficult to say which is the photo and which is the painting. Personally, I do not see the art in this style. It can be technically brilliant but it is in no way expressive.
When a painter produces a photorealistic piece,only the challenge of making the subject look exactly like the real object is met.
There is no art to it.
It’s a form of showing off technical skills.
“See what I can do!?”
There’s no interpretation of reality. There is only reproduction of reality.
....what if the painter is the one who took the photo in the first place?
@@hulkslayer626 - good question.
If the photo is one of high quality, the photographer gets credit and praise for photographic ability. But the hyper-realistic painting of that photo has virtue only as a work of skill and technique, not of art.The painting is still a good 'image' but its being painted is an act of technique only.
@@renzo6490 Hmmmm.... I see your point. But I don't know if I can full get on board with it. Just 2 examples. First, I have seen at least 1 artist who takes multiple photos of a subject with different lighting and angles etc... and uses bits and pieces of each photo to make a final composite photo of the best attributes of some of his shots, and then does a hyper realistic painting of that digitally created rendering. ....now that I just said all that, I'm sure you would agree that he is an artist as well, so that was a bad example lmao But anyway, he is still just painting a photo when you boil it down. I would definitely consider him an artist. Secondly: Saying that anyone who paints a photo to look just like a photo is not an artist, and is just displaying skill is kinda harsh against all painters. That's insinuating that a painter is not an artist. It separates the ability from the vision. Idk... like I said, I definitely see your point, but I think I might believe that being an artist is a combination of both skill and vision.
@@hulkslayer626 -
First, let me say how refreshing it is to be having a respectful exchange that hasn't descended into abusive language !
Ok. Maybe I can clarify the distinction that I'm making between being a painter and an artist. ( and I speak from personal experience ).
If I make an exact copy of Edvard Munch's ''The Scream'', I have shown that I am capable of mixing colors to match the original,applying the paint with accurate brush strokes, and reproducing the shapes and proportions I see.
That makes me a skilled painter.
But only Munch can be credited with any vision or creativity and that makes him the artist.
__________________
But here is another conundrum on a different topic: Say I am a photographer. I set up my camera on a street corner. It is programed to snap a shot every 15 seconds. After an hour, I have hundreds of images. I look at them all and I select one that has an excellent composition, great shadows, interesting figures etc.
It's a great picture.
Does that make me a great photographer or great editor? Do I get credit for taking the picture or for selecting it ??
Its not that simple....If a painter has a live model come in & pose, such as the one holding the giant ball of foil....in history, that process including the composition is not only considered artistic expression, but can vary from one artist to the next depending on their choice of subject. With the camera, its no longer necessary to use a live model through the entire process. Even renaissance painters would use dummies for extended sessions with a dress or to complete a portion of the pose.....Both, dummies & cameras simply give artists freedom & flexibility with scheduling, expenses, & in some cases such as landscape.....weather. Many artists still prefer to paint from real life, outside....or using models. But to suggest that the exact same image is less expressive because the model was photographed first instead of repeated sessions in person is pretentious. Art is for the viewer to enjoy but the process belongs to the artist.
I paint what the customer wants. I could paint loads of stuff that is of no interest to anyone else. What's the point ? I've got to pay the rent and put food on the table to eek out my old age pension
Meh