PDA

View Full Version : The Paintings Of Jason de Graaf



erikals
06-11-2012, 07:13 PM
 
old-school...
http://jasondegraaf.blogspot.com

 

Mr. Wilde
06-12-2012, 07:41 AM
That is just beyond incredible.

rcallicotte
06-12-2012, 12:08 PM
It really is amazing.

Fausto
06-16-2012, 10:37 PM
 
old-school...
http://jasondegraaf.blogspot.com

 

Sorry, there's nothing old school about this art. It's dreadful really. It is simply a slavish copy of a photograph in acrylic paint (the least soulful medium). There's nothing painterly about this art, the compositions are static, poorly designed, NOT good. The colour is garish, there's nothing held in reserve, there's no story being told, nothing new is being offered..

It's pretty clear that he uses projection to get his images from either 3D images he's created, or photos he's taken onto board or canvas, a practice too common these days (few people draw anymore).. I loathe this type of imagery, honestly, I can't bring myself to call it art.

Here's some great art...
Bouguereau
http://www.bouguereau.org/

Richard Schmid
http://www.richardschmid.com/rsAvailable.html

David Leffel
http://davidleffel.com/paintings/available-works/

meshpig
06-17-2012, 04:50 AM
Sorry, there's nothing old school about this art. It's dreadful really. It is simply a slavish copy of a photograph in acrylic paint (the least soulful medium). There's nothing painterly about this art, the compositions are static, poorly designed, NOT good. The colour is garish, there's nothing held in reserve, there's no story being told, nothing new is being offered..

It's pretty clear that he uses projection to get his images from either 3D images he's created, or photos he's taken onto board or canvas, a practice too common these days (few people draw anymore).. I loathe this type of imagery, honestly, I can't bring myself to call it art.

Here's some great art...
Bouguereau
http://www.bouguereau.org/

Richard Schmid
http://www.richardschmid.com/rsAvailable.html

David Leffel
http://davidleffel.com/paintings/available-works/

It hardly matters whether it's "art" or not but I agree it's definitely not "old school" if that's supposed to mean using paint and brushes... raises an interesting conundrum though given that "Painting" came to be known as such after thousands of years of eye/hand manipulation of images (from Ancient Egypt to the French Impressionists) but from what the eye perceives not what a camera "sees".

The point of "painters" like Gerhard Richter I suppose is to make that distinction but the problem still persists. Given that people talk more crap about art than they do sex, money or politcs combined how would you do what Painting once did digitally?

erikals
06-17-2012, 04:56 AM
 
maybe i misunderstood the meaning of old-school, but the though was that it was interesting to see someone trying to replicate scenes by hand instead of digitally.

some might not be impressed, but i was, it'd be extremely hard for me to replicate that kind of work...
cool to see that it actually can be done.

 

meshpig
06-17-2012, 05:45 AM

maybe i misunderstood the meaning of old-school, but the though was that it was interesting to see someone trying to replicate scenes by hand instead of digitally.

some might not be impressed, but i was, it'd be extremely hard for me to replicate that kind of work...
cool to see that it actually can be done.



High quality Acrylic paint, good technique, no problem. Why would you bother though?:)

Fausto
06-17-2012, 08:11 AM
 
maybe i misunderstood the meaning of old-school, but the though was that it was interesting to see someone trying to replicate scenes by hand instead of digitally.

some might not be impressed, but i was, it'd be extremely hard for me to replicate that kind of work...
cool to see that it actually can be done.

 

I can see your point. It's a common misconception that art = accurately replicating either what's in a photo or even what's in front of you physically. If that were the case, every photo ever taken would be seen as art. I have several photo albums that disprove that theory, trust me. My point is that art should be infused with something from the artist. It should bring something extra. There should be some attribute that's not there, or is there that isn't always the focus that gives the piece its definition, its purpose, its intent. Whether we're talking about a caricature of some individual, or a landscape that's composed, understood, observed and executed well, it's the intent that defines it. Taking a look at David Leffel's work one might first assume that his paintings are about objects, people or scenes. In truth, his paintings are less about those things and more about light and its relationship to the objects getting in its way.

Tom Richmond, Jim van der Keyl, or even the works of Lightwave's own William Vaughn is about character, it's about emphasizing or exaggeration, not so much about replicating what's in from of them. To me that's a stronger artistic statement than the works of this fellow. In my opinion, art without the artist isn't art, it's rendering. In addition to the other aspects I stated, about these works; rendering something so it looks like a photograph may be painting, but it isn't art.

Cheers,

Fausto
06-17-2012, 08:14 AM
High quality Acrylic paint, good technique, no problem. Why would you bother though?:)

Exactly..