Re: So wrong, also ?

[Evan Hanson]

I believe Norman Rockwell frequently used a projector.


Evan

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 21, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Bob W wrote:

>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>> knarftheria...@gmail.com
> 
>> His paintings are a hell of a lot sharper than my photographs.
>> 
>> ;-)
>> 
>> I suppose that his technique (or at least the result) is interesting,
>> but the subject matter is rather banal. It looks like that's the way he
>> wants it, and he's entitled.to that. If some find that the technique or
>> style overwhelms content to the point that the mundane has value then
>> they're entitled to that, too.
>> 
>> I actually like hyper-real painting but for me it works much better if
>> the subject matter holds my interest. This gentleman's work (from what
>> I've seen) doesn't.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> frank
> 
> from what I've seen the banality of the prima facie subject matter is
> important, because the real subject matter is not the bottles, or the
> newspapers or the sunset, but the act of looking. I find that quite
> interesting. 
> 
> It reminds me quite a lot of the early novels by Nicholson Baker, which are
> minute-scale examinations of banal events, such as a worker's lunchtime
> spent in a chemist's shop. The world in a grain of sand, that kind of thing.
> Minute examination of the familiar leads to new ways of looking. In these
> pictures he also seems to have a thing about words, and fragments of word,
> which adds a dimension. 
> 
> B
> 
I agree. I find the work fascinating. His earlier work was traditional 
landscapes and the like. Those were realist as well, but I don't find them as 
compelling.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: So wrong, also ?

[Bob W]

> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> knarftheria...@gmail.com

> His paintings are a hell of a lot sharper than my photographs.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> I suppose that his technique (or at least the result) is interesting,
> but the subject matter is rather banal. It looks like that's the way he
> wants it, and he's entitled.to that. If some find that the technique or
> style overwhelms content to the point that the mundane has value then
> they're entitled to that, too.
> 
> I actually like hyper-real painting but for me it works much better if
> the subject matter holds my interest. This gentleman's work (from what
> I've seen) doesn't.
> 
> Cheers,
> frank

from what I've seen the banality of the prima facie subject matter is
important, because the real subject matter is not the bottles, or the
newspapers or the sunset, but the act of looking. I find that quite
interesting. 

It reminds me quite a lot of the early novels by Nicholson Baker, which are
minute-scale examinations of banal events, such as a worker's lunchtime
spent in a chemist's shop. The world in a grain of sand, that kind of thing.
Minute examination of the familiar leads to new ways of looking. In these
pictures he also seems to have a thing about words, and fragments of word,
which adds a dimension. 

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Igor Roshchin]

Fri Jan 20 19:19:04 EST 2012
Bob W wrote:

> > From: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] On
> > Behalf Of
> > Igor Roshchin
> 
> > I suspect Paul knows this, but in case other people don't...
> > 
> > A few years ago, a physicist Charles Falco in collaboration
> > with David Hockney (artist and art historian), has demonstrated
> > that a lot of renaissance artists were using lenses and mirrors
> > to project images - so that they can paint some elements of the
> > picture over the projected image. This is called "Hockney-Falco"
> > thesis.
> > 
> > You can read more about this here:
> > http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/art-optics/index.html
> > 
> > I heard several talks/lectures of Charlie, and even had a chance of
> > hosting one of them at Texas A&M University.
> > While some art historians might disagree (they think that
> > Falco-Hockney
> > are trying to take down the importance of the particular classical
> > artists, which is not the case), as a scientist, I am very much
> > convinced by the arguments made by these guys.
> 
> I have a very good book called Vermeer's Camera in which the author puts
> forward his argument for the idea that Vermeer used a camera obscura. There
> is a web page to accompany it: http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk/home.htm
> 
> There are contemporary pictures that show draughtmen using various
> optical devices as drawing aids since at least the Renaissance.
> 
> 

Bob, yes, that book is also talking about the same idea.
Falco in his online essay (see the link above), references Steadman's
book a few times. 
While I am not an expert on the history of the topic, it looks like
Steadman's book came out in 2001, which is after the first publication
by Falco-Hockney in 2000.

Actually, the argument used by Falco to prove his point is based on
something that is close to what we are dealing in the photography:
properties of optics, e.g. why an image (e.g. portrait) taken with a 
100 mm lens is not the same as that taken with a 31 mm lens at a closer 
distance (hence resulting in overall the same size of the image).
It is the difference in the perspective and where the vanishing point is.

Many artists, actually were using either a lens or a mirror to do
the projection, moving it to better project different portions of
the image, - hence - multiple vanishing points in the paintings.

Note, that besides "camera obscura", there "camera lucida" has also
been used by artists as a tool for drawing.
(see, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida )

There is a curious fact: Falco attributes some of his initial intuition
in recognizing the optics-aided paintings to his experience in
photography (in the middle of the page:
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/SSD/art-optics/personal.html


Cheers,

Igor

Cheers,

Igor



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: So wrong, also ?

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

His paintings are a hell of a lot sharper than my photographs.

;-)

I suppose that his technique (or at least the result) is interesting, but the 
subject matter is rather banal. It looks like that's the way he wants it, and 
he's entitled.to that. If some find that the technique or style overwhelms 
content to the point that the mundane has value then they're entitled to that, 
too.

I actually like hyper-real painting but for me it works much better if the 
subject matter holds my interest. This gentleman's work (from what I've seen) 
doesn't.

Cheers,
frank

--- Original Message ---

From: Ann Sanfedele 
Sent: January 20, 2012 1/20/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Subject: So wrong, also ?

So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/

I found it hard to believe. so what is going on here?  I think
this guy used a projector to project a photo he took (the first
one I might find slightly interesting as a photo in a piece about
glass , the others, not at all) onto canvas and then added acryllic.
In the way illustartors used to do to pump out stuff for books quickly.


I cynically wrote the poster that I thought they were fake totally
(photoshop) but apparently they are really large "paintings" .

Anyone know more about Mills?

"Look what I can do" (or look what can be done) art kinda always annoys 
me - unless it is just for fun.

This stuff seems just, well, shallow

What say you guys?

ann

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: So wrong, also ?

[Bob W]

> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Igor Roshchin

> I suspect Paul knows this, but in case other people don't...
> 
> A few years ago, a physicist Charles Falco in collaboration
> with David Hockney (artist and art historian), has demonstrated
> that a lot of renaissance artists were using lenses and mirrors
> to project images - so that they can paint some elements of the
> picture over the projected image. This is called "Hockney-Falco"
> thesis.
> 
> You can read more about this here:
> http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/art-optics/index.html
> 
> I heard several talks/lectures of Charlie, and even had a chance of
> hosting one of them at Texas A&M University.
> While some art historians might disagree (they think that Falco-Hockney
> are trying to take down the importance of the particular classical
> artists, which is not the case), as a scientist, I am very much
> convinced by the arguments made by these guys.

I have a very good book called Vermeer's Camera in which the author puts
forward his argument for the idea that Vermeer used a camera obscura. There
is a web page to accompany it: http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk/home.htm

There are contemporary pictures that show draughtmen using various optical
devices as drawing aids since at least the Renaissance.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Igor Roshchin]

I suspect Paul knows this, but in case other people don't...  

A few years ago, a physicist Charles Falco in collaboration
with David Hockney (artist and art historian), has demonstrated
that a lot of renaissance artists were using lenses and mirrors
to project images - so that they can paint some elements of the
picture over the projected image. This is called "Hockney-Falco" thesis.

You can read more about this here:
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/ssd/art-optics/index.html

I heard several talks/lectures of Charlie, and even had a chance of
hosting one of them at Texas A&M University.
While some art historians might disagree (they think that Falco-Hockney
are trying to take down the importance of the particular classical
artists, which is not the case), as a scientist, I am very much
convinced by the arguments made by these guys.

Igor


Fri Jan 20 11:07:42 EST 2012
Paul Stenquist wrote:

On Jan 20, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote:

> Hmmm - a techie version of paint by numbers?
> 
> -p
My, the list is judgmental today.

Painting with a projector and a photograph is nothing like painting by
numbers. More accurately, it could be considered a contemporary version
of the camera obscura, a projecting device that most scholars believe to
have been used by Vermeer and other Dutch Masters to create their
beautifully detailed canvases. I suspect that painting from a projection
is much more difficult and requires much more artistic ability than most
would think. It doesn't annoy me in the least.

However, I have found nothing to suggest that Steve Mills relies on a
projector or other device. He is simply a very talented realist, and his
art is well received by most critics. 

jPaul

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Ann Sanfedele]

On 1/20/2012 18:04, Joseph McAllister wrote:

If you want words for Scrabble play, use Dave's posts as a reference!  :-)


There is also apiece I havent read yet


Or your own… :-)

yeahyeahyeah :-)

ann


On Jan 20, 2012, at 13:21 , Ann Sanfedele wrote:


On 1/20/2012 15:36, Charles Robinson wrote:

On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:40, Ann Sanfedele wrote:


So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/



My biggest issue with this is that "shelterisland" isn't a real word!

  -Charles



Actually - the guy who posted the link to the Scrabble list pointed out
a couple of other "phony" words too...

Quite apart from whether it is paint or photoshop, the original photo or
a free-hand finely executed work, it's a real snooze - nothing to look at in 
any form.  The artist inserted words on the board that were personal to him..

There is also apiece I havent read yet on him in 'THE LAST WORD" current issue 
on line.


Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com

There is no off position to the genius switch.
Genius can, however, be observed as insanity.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Joseph McAllister]

If you want words for Scrabble play, use Dave's posts as a reference!  :-)

> There is also apiece I havent read yet

Or your own… :-)

On Jan 20, 2012, at 13:21 , Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> On 1/20/2012 15:36, Charles Robinson wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:40, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>> 
>>> So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link
>>> 
>>> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/
>>> 
>> 
>> My biggest issue with this is that "shelterisland" isn't a real word!
>> 
>>  -Charles
>> 
> 
> Actually - the guy who posted the link to the Scrabble list pointed out
> a couple of other "phony" words too...
> 
> Quite apart from whether it is paint or photoshop, the original photo or
> a free-hand finely executed work, it's a real snooze - nothing to look at in 
> any form.  The artist inserted words on the board that were personal to him..
> 
> There is also apiece I havent read yet on him in 'THE LAST WORD" current 
> issue on line.

Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com

There is no off position to the genius switch.
Genius can, however, be observed as insanity.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-20 13:36 Charles Robinson wrote

On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:40, Ann Sanfedele wrote:


So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/



My biggest issue with this is that "shelterisland" isn't a real word!


neither is "pillowman", but suspecting the artist has something to say through 
the scrabblewords in the painting i learned that "The Pillowman" is a rather 
unusual play which itself contains some referential twists




i can't offhand think of a word that ends in "clopey"

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Ann Sanfedele]

On 1/20/2012 15:36, Charles Robinson wrote:

On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:40, Ann Sanfedele wrote:


So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/



My biggest issue with this is that "shelterisland" isn't a real word!

  -Charles



Actually - the guy who posted the link to the Scrabble list pointed out
a couple of other "phony" words too...

Quite apart from whether it is paint or photoshop, the original photo or
a free-hand finely executed work, it's a real snooze - nothing to look 
at in any form.  The artist inserted words on the board that were 
personal to him..


There is also apiece I havent read yet on him in 'THE LAST WORD" current 
issue on line.


ann

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: So wrong, also ?

[Bob W]

> So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link
> 
> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-
> steve-mills/
> 
> I found it hard to believe. so what is going on here?  I think
> this guy used a projector to project a photo he took (the first
> one I might find slightly interesting as a photo in a piece about
> glass , the others, not at all) onto canvas and then added acryllic.
> In the way illustartors used to do to pump out stuff for books quickly.
> 
> 
> I cynically wrote the poster that I thought they were fake totally
> (photoshop) but apparently they are really large "paintings" .
> 
> Anyone know more about Mills?
> 
> "Look what I can do" (or look what can be done) art kinda always annoys
> me - unless it is just for fun.
> 
> This stuff seems just, well, shallow
> 
> What say you guys?
> 
> ann

Somebody ought to photograph it in soft focus and print it on artistic
canvas.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: So wrong, also ?

[Bob W]

> 
> > http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-
> steve-mills/
> 
> > What say you guys?
> 
> I can't really get into it, either. I wrote a bit when I first learned
> of his work:
> 
> http://scotchtape.ductwhisky.com/2011/06/on-photorealism.html
> 

all modern art is an ongoing conversation with and about the history of art.
Photorealism is about the impact of photography on painting and on
representational art. It is one of the ways in which painting responds by
questioning the image itself and making us question our reactions to and
relationships with reality and its representations.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-20 06:40 Ann Sanfedele wrote

So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/


hyperrealism is an established movement in painting; the artists do usually 
work from photos, but i don't recall seeing such a painting with bokeh rings


to me, the style itself is generally stunning when viewed in person, but holds 
my interest when there is something more, such as the choice of subject or a 
concept worked out through a series of paintings


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 20, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Ann Sanfedele  wrote:
> 
>> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/
> 
>> What say you guys?
> 
> I can't really get into it, either. I wrote a bit when I first learned
> of his work:
> 
> http://scotchtape.ductwhisky.com/2011/06/on-photorealism.html

I really like the "scotch tape duct whisky" name of the blog.  Very clever.

> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Charles Robinson]

On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:40, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link
> 
> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/
> 

My biggest issue with this is that "shelterisland" isn't a real word!

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Cotty]

On 20/1/12, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>My, the list is judgmental today.

MARK.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Matthew Hunt]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Ann Sanfedele  wrote:

> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/

> What say you guys?

I can't really get into it, either. I wrote a bit when I first learned
of his work:

http://scotchtape.ductwhisky.com/2011/06/on-photorealism.html

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 20, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote:

> Hmmm - a techie version of paint by numbers?
> 
> -p
My, the list is judgmental today.

Painting with a projector and a photograph is nothing like painting by numbers. 
More accurately, it could be considered a contemporary version of the camera 
obscura, a projecting device that most scholars believe to have been used by 
Vermeer and other Dutch Masters to create their beautifully detailed canvases. 
I suspect that painting from a projection is much more difficult and requires 
much more artistic ability than most would think. It doesn't annoy me in the 
least.

However, I have found nothing to suggest that Steve Mills relies on a projector 
or other device. He is simply a very talented realist, and his art is well 
received by most critics. 

jPaul
> 
> On 1/20/2012 7:40 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>> So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link
>> 
>> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/
>> 
>> 
>> I found it hard to believe. so what is going on here? I think
>> this guy used a projector to project a photo he took (the first
>> one I might find slightly interesting as a photo in a piece about
>> glass , the others, not at all) onto canvas and then added acryllic.
>> In the way illustartors used to do to pump out stuff for books quickly.
>> 
>> 
>> I cynically wrote the poster that I thought they were fake totally
>> (photoshop) but apparently they are really large "paintings" .
>> 
>> Anyone know more about Mills?
>> 
>> "Look what I can do" (or look what can be done) art kinda always annoys
>> me - unless it is just for fun.
>> 
>> This stuff seems just, well, shallow
>> 
>> What say you guys?
>> 
>> ann
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Paul Sorenson]

Hmmm - a techie version of paint by numbers?

-p

On 1/20/2012 7:40 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/


I found it hard to believe. so what is going on here? I think
this guy used a projector to project a photo he took (the first
one I might find slightly interesting as a photo in a piece about
glass , the others, not at all) onto canvas and then added acryllic.
In the way illustartors used to do to pump out stuff for books quickly.


I cynically wrote the poster that I thought they were fake totally
(photoshop) but apparently they are really large "paintings" .

Anyone know more about Mills?

"Look what I can do" (or look what can be done) art kinda always annoys
me - unless it is just for fun.

This stuff seems just, well, shallow

What say you guys?

ann



--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: So wrong, also ?

[Bong Manayon]

At least it was his own photograph that he painted.  This is
interesting because photography, before they discovered silver and
hypo, was simply taking a camera obscura and using it as a tracing
tool.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Ann Sanfedele  wrote:
> So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link
>
> http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/
>
> I found it hard to believe. so what is going on here?  I think
> this guy used a projector to project a photo he took (the first
> one I might find slightly interesting as a photo in a piece about
> glass , the others, not at all) onto canvas and then added acryllic.
> In the way illustartors used to do to pump out stuff for books quickly.
>
>
> I cynically wrote the poster that I thought they were fake totally
> (photoshop) but apparently they are really large "paintings" .
>
> Anyone know more about Mills?
>
> "Look what I can do" (or look what can be done) art kinda always annoys me -
> unless it is just for fun.
>
> This stuff seems just, well, shallow
>
> What say you guys?
>
> ann
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.



-- 
Bong Manayon
http://bong.manayon.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

So wrong, also ?

[Ann Sanfedele]

So on the Scrabble discuss list last week someone posted this link

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/01/hyper-realistic-paintings-by-steve-mills/

I found it hard to believe. so what is going on here?  I think
this guy used a projector to project a photo he took (the first
one I might find slightly interesting as a photo in a piece about
glass , the others, not at all) onto canvas and then added acryllic.
In the way illustartors used to do to pump out stuff for books quickly.


I cynically wrote the poster that I thought they were fake totally
(photoshop) but apparently they are really large "paintings" .

Anyone know more about Mills?

"Look what I can do" (or look what can be done) art kinda always annoys 
me - unless it is just for fun.


This stuff seems just, well, shallow

What say you guys?

ann

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.