Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Juliana Ross ...because they are actual paintings  |
I guess one could argue that you need to use "actual paint" to create a painting, but wouldn't "digital paint" qualify, too? I dunno.
Zip: Did you contact the artist for confirmation?
Here's why I think they are digital manipulations.
1. As a whole these look consistently photo-realistic. Isolate the dog from the background, paint the background in a contrasting, bright color, apply some simplifying effects on the dog and apply paint (layer blend mode = Color) or engage Corel Painter.
2. Descriptions on her website are suggestive, but not conclusive:
* "bright & bold artwork" - Simplified images (dog, floor, background) and a lot of saturation would (and do) achieve this.
* "Giclee Prints" - This is a finish that can be applied to any kind of print, not just paintings generated by traditional methods.
* "I paint using contemporary colors which means opposite colors on the color wheel" - I can paint (sort of) using contemporary colors using Corel Painter. With Painter's color wheel right in the middle of the colors palette, it's easy to identify a color's opposite (compliment).
* "BFA (Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts) in painting" - It sure doesn't hurt to have traditional skills to use Painter.
* "Commission time is 3 to 4 months" - Would you pay THAT MUCH if turnaround was, say, a week?
3. The complete absense of any verbiage on her site mentioning or describing traditional materials or media, to me, is very curious. Most traditional artists go out of their way to distinguish their methods from the
digital cheaters.
4. Do the (IMO) very high prices mean she's using traditional means? Not necessarily. It just means she's found people (and who knows how many), who are willing to pay them.
It's all about perception.
But I could be totally wrong -- just ask my wife!
- - - - - - -
In the mean time, try this
Creative Challenge.
