Leonardo di Vinci Sucked Compared to This Artist

Submitted by: eugenius 9 years ago in
http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp

OK, maybe Dru Blair isn"t as great as di Vinci and the Mona Lisa, but this guy creates an incredibly lifelike portrait.
There are 94 comments:
Female 2,927
whao!
0
Reply
Female 68
BTW:


While you all were arguing... did anyone go to the "Vanessa" site mentioned in the article?
=)

0
Reply
Female 68
Why paint a picture of a photograph in 65 hours when you can just TAKE another picture?


Jeeeesh. Even scanning it would take less time!

:op

0
Reply
Female 26
Listen to this crap:
"Art: (my definition)

Art is the selective re-creation or conversion of reality by the human mind into concrete imagery according to an artist`s metaphysical value judgments. Real or imagined concepts are filtered and altered through the human mind to the artist`s hand to create an image or sound that did not exist before. The reason photography does not qualify
as art is that the process removes the filter of the human mind as an interpretative element. Although photography requires technical skill, in the final analysis it is only a mechanical recording of reality. "
1. Photography IS art. Ignorant asswipe. It is the art that helps you fool minds into believing your crap, sadly.
2. Concrete imagery? Ever heard of, hmmm, KANDINSKY or POLLOCK? They painted their own view on life, a diverse and beautiful, never-before-seen art.
3. And, by your definition, you just classified yourself as being as creative and unique as a blank piece of pape

0
Reply
Female 26
Photorealism is CRAP. He has the skill and no the imagination. Not amazing at all. And it`s a photo. Are you all that blind? If someone told you "the moon is made from cheese" would you believe them?

"Against:
1) This is probably better than what Da vinci could have done with an Airbrush.
2) Da vinci didn`t dedicate his career to Airbrushing techniques in photorealism."
You moron, that didn`t even exist during his time! He couldn`t possibly have done that! Plus, how do YOU know about what da Vinci could or could not have done with an airbrush, you prick?

0
Reply
Female 26
I know no di Vinci. Who is this di Vinci you`re talking about? I heard about DA Vinci but never about di Vinci.
Link anyone? :(
0
Reply
Male 104
Looks shopped to me. Anyone can put pencil drawings and piece them together with photos in photoshop. Even if it is real, I`d rather do what I just said then go through all the trouble of making it by hand with airbrush.
0
Reply
Male 194
Her dress looks like a cake.
0
Reply
Female 71
>Art is meant to make you think. If you showed this to anyone, all they`d say is, "Wow, that`s a nice photograph..." <_< Sure, it`d be a good conversation topic, but chances are they won`t believe you, and it`s not going to provoke any worthwhile thoughts.


Agreed!
And da Vinci never sucks!! >-(

0
Reply
Male 2,395
Leonardo still has my vote.
0
Reply
Female 321
hmm...i am inclined to think its fake, too.
0
Reply
Male 355
... how people can be fooled easy, he just went backyards with a photo!

dratn FAKE

0
Reply
Male 637
Art is meant to make you think. If you showed this to anyone, all they`d say is, "Wow, that`s a nice photograph..." <_< Sure, it`d be a good conversation topic, but chances are they won`t believe you, and it`s not going to provoke any worthwhile thoughts.
0
Reply
Male 724
BUT HE CHEATED. D:>
0
Reply
Female 44
Ok, I have to admit that I am inclined to think that this guy faked the whole thing with Photoshop. The progression images don`t look right at all.

Even if it was real why would you want a painting that looked like a photograph? Art is meant to mean something and it should be a statement of some kind. Da Vinci was a master this guy is not.

0
Reply
Male 339
What`s the point of doing this? BFD.
0
Reply
Female 1,395
Yeah re-post. Crazy skills but completely pointless. If people want an exact photographic representation of something they take a PHOTOGRAPH. This isnt what great art is; iti s a lesson in techinical exactness; there`s little creativity involved.
0
Reply
Male 72
Wow some people are gullible!!!! Haven`t you ever added an effect to a photo, using illustrator or photoshop? Reverse that and you have exactly what he has done. A real artist would have worked evenly laying down layer after layer, starting with block colour across the whole page. This guy, if he really was a painter, would not have finished whole sections then moved on to other sections ie finishing the face before even starting the rest. Sorry but I work all day with real Artists and it`s kind of annoying to see a schmuck like this given even a tiny bit of respect. Photorealism is also not the aim of a true Artist. It`s about going beyond copying to find something deeper.
0
Reply
Male 336
anyone else thought his web page was lack luster for how good of an artist he is?
0
Reply
Male 319
This painting is...NOT balls!!!

Seriously, that`s insane. Guy`s got skill.

0
Reply
Female 169
am still a skeptic
0
Reply
Male 2,216
Bollocks! I call complete shenanigans on this! I`m sorry but its fake! It`ll be revealed as a hoax in 20 years or something.

As for Da Vinci... yeah, he didnt have computers and photos to work from and quite so modern technology, plus he was also an inventor, if this guy can make such a masterpiece using what was available during Da Vinci`s time, THEN you can compare them.

Until then, you can`t!

0
Reply
Male 137
I`m not getting in to the Leonardo debate because this guy is clever not an "artist".

One thing gets me, if this is real, which I suspect it is ("hyper real"LMAO)why the F**k didn`t he just get a really good camera, take a picture and blow the print up to the size he wanted it - would have taken a lot less time.

0
Reply
Male 548
REPOST
0
Reply
Female 400
I dunno, guys.
I think Da Vinci and this dude really aren`t comparable in the least. They`re at two totally different ends of the spectrum.

Besides... this is like the opposite of creativity.
I wouldn`t really consider it `art`, per se.

0
Reply
Male 3,431
Shopped, I wonder what Da Vinci could have conceived had he been alive today.
0
Reply
Male 153
so much fail in the poster of this thread
0
Reply
Male 392
LOL SHOPPED
0
Reply
Female 4,197
I would like to get my hands on Da Vinci`s doodles. Apparently they were amazing and half of them still haven`t been figured out yet. I have to agree, he`s not like Da Vinci, he`s nothing like Da Vinci! Yes they are both artisit, but Da Vinci was also a genius, a creator and inventor and years and years ahead of his time. He was also one of the best cryptologists (I think that`s what they are called... they make codes and cryptic things) IF this is real (and I highly doubt this is, I would want to see a time lapsed video before I believed he made this realistic pic) he is very talented, but he has nothing on the big guy ;)
0
Reply
Female 993
Was this done with a model or did he freelance this?
0
Reply
Male 2,576
... do you even know WHY Leonardo is concidered soo great?
0
Reply
Male 550
I`ve seen it before, when I was learning how to airbrush...
0
Reply
Male 3,296
that was cool and freaking hard
0
Reply
Male 741
Eh...might as well take a picture. Same results, less effort.
0
Reply
Female 139
goodness gracious great balls of fire That`s amazing!
0
Reply
Male 297
that`s pretty neat.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Come on guys! This is obviously a fake. He`s created a line art image using Photoshop, then added in layers of skin colour and occasionally masked in things. The masking is really apparent in the image with the lips and top of the face.
0
Reply
Male 28
Leonardo Da Vinci. DA Vinci.
At least spell his name right when you diss him.
0
Reply
Male 575
I went to a public art highschool, and they brought in as a guest artist a photorealist painter once and his stuff was amazing this guy`s is kinda ... boring. Da Vinci was on the cutting edge of art and technology for his time period however many artists are currently at his level these days, we are advancing on his advances (as well as getting into throwing paint on a canvas and calling it art which is just ridiculous if you ask me) He is a legend because of the advances he made not only in art but also because of his ingenuity regarding all things mechanical. ... >.> ... essentialy this guy is no da vinci but he is good at what he does. I could go on but I really don`t care that much.
0
Reply
Male 93
You say the difference between this guy and Da Vinci is this guy copied (from a photo). What`s the difference between copying from a photo and a live model?
0
Reply
Male 10,440
eugenious you disgust me. DaVinci was one of the greatest men the world has ever seen, how dare you compare him you moron.
0
Reply
Male 508
If you`re an artist and you`ve ever picked up an airbrush, you know how easy it is to make photo realistic work. That`s why you don`t see it in art galleries. Anybody can do it. Dru Blair is the extreem end of the spectrum as his work is absolutely perfect, but then spend 50 hours on a painting and tell me you couldn`t do the same. DaVinci applied home made paint, with home made brushes to buildings with imperfect surfaces. He was a genious. Dru Blair is o.k. by comparison. Doubt he could do what the maestro did.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
And Wango: He DOES create things too.

While we`re handing out orders for things people should be doing. "Create don`t emulate". Try reading the frigging link before commenting on it.

In particular the points where he talks about:
"Technical exercise" "The point of photo realism is..." "My other works include..." "Things that can`t be done with a camera..." "The room for art in photo-realism..." Etc.

It takes two goddamn minutes to read.

I know I come off as high and mighty, but drat it irritates me when people are that willfully ignorant. I`m not asking you to do months of research. I`m just asking that people read the thing the frigging talking about.

Ugh.

0
Reply
Male 169
It`s cool... but what`s the point? There`s no creativity at all... it`s no different than what professional air-brushers do to photos of models and celebrities. Still pretty cool, though, and I admire his dedication.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
And for the Davinci portion of the debate.

In favour of Da Vinci:
1) Da vinci didn`t have an airbrush.
2) Da vinci didn`t have a digital photo to work from.
3) Da vinci was an inventor too.

Against:
1) This is probably better than what Da vinci could have done with an Airbrush.
2) Da vinci didn`t dedicate his career to Airbrushing techniques in photorealism.

0
Reply
Male 77
He used a photo for reference, so basically he is a human photo copy machine. So whats the point? That he has no imagination and only technique. What a waste of time. Try to create something instead of emulating it.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
1) It is real.
2) It is a repost on IAB.
3) It`s also on Digg.

4) I`ve lost all respect for Snopes. Have you seen the debate forum? 2 pages of "Why does it have some elements of a photograph? Like the halo around the ear?".

It was painted from a photo. He says it was painted from a photo. He mentions the make of frigging camera.

Glad to see the experts are on the case. Jeez.

0
Reply
Female 1,407
As old news as this is, it never ceases to amaze me.
0
Reply
Male 807
Try a camera, it will last longer.

This guy is copying, while DaVinci was creating.

0
Reply
Female 40
that is amazing! =D I wish i had that much talent....
0
Reply
Female 69
AHHHH
its creepy how reel it looks
0
Reply
Female 159
It looks to me in the stages that he took a photograph and worked backwards.. there was a post of this a while back of the movie of them doing it. But there was a large part missing. I`m not saying they aren`t great artists, it was a great pic. But it went from `person-created-on-photoshop` to `realistic-life-like-image-with pores-and-folicles` with him jsut doing touch ups. Not prepared to believe it til I see a full video.
0
Reply
Female 465
I`ve seen this before, I wish I could make something half as good as that...
0
Reply
Male 15
That`s incredible, I wish I had half that talent...
0
Reply
Female 59
Bull.
0
Reply
Male 95
Repost...
0
Reply
Male 80
well, makes sense. I didn`t really think there was anyone that dumb.

0
Reply
Male 3,255
Wow, really? I don`t think I could have made my sarcasm any more obvious. Rofl, wow...
0
Reply
Female 158
to be honest, i am very skeptical of this. The whole timeline thing looks extremely fake.
0
Reply
Male 136
"Dextrine
Sunday, May 25, 2008 12:15:15 PM
this guy would own at hentai"

lmao <.<

0
Reply
Female 127
I am really not impressed
0
Reply
Male 651
i`ve seen much more ignorant statements...
0
Reply
Male 651
its really not.
0
Reply
Male 60
it took da vinci 10 years to paint the mona lisa`s lips
0
Reply
Male 1,148
The painting is like a bluddy photo... the guy is awesome.
0
Reply
Male 124
It took him 3 hours to finish the shading on the upper lip.
0
Reply
Male 80
you`re seriously telling me art has nothing to do with creativity? hahahahaha

why would you even post that?

0
Reply
Male 60
agreed^^^ the people saying that this guy is better than da vinci obviously have no idea who da vinci was.
0
Reply
Male 773
photoshopped, pixels, etc
0
Reply
Male 3,255
@KillTheWeak

What are you talking about? Art is about putting paint on to a canvas somehow. It has nothing to do with creativity!

0
Reply
Male 80
haha, it`s funny to me how you can even compare Leonardo da Vinci to this schmuck.

Don`t get me wrong here, but this guy can do photorealism, wooooot! How about I just take a good picture?

Oh yeah thats way too easy.

This guy is good, yeah that`s true. Is he better than da vinci? no. In fact, f*ck no.

Leornardo da Vinci is not great because of his paintings, he`s great because of the fact that he was a genius.

He was an inventor 100`s of years ahead of his time, and an innovator too. All I ask is that for the respect of art, don`t compare this guy to one of the greatest minds that has ever walked this earth. :-)

0
Reply
Male 483
this guy would own at hentai
0
Reply
Female 1,120
I have seen this before. I believe it.. It took what 70 hours to complete the airbrush part or something? I just would never waste my time doing something like that.
0
Reply
Male 60
it`s real, ita a form of `hyper-real art` used through a process of `air brushing` fine amounts of colour onto the surface of a canvas through a stencil. Its amazing but to those of you stating its and painting, it is not. It would be close t impossible to recreate that image on such a scale of realism had it been painted in the traditional sense with a paintbrush.
0
Reply
Male 386
That`s the guy my Dad paid to make you guys!

Though he messed up a little on that one. Look at her left ear. the earlobe looks a tad fishy.

0
Reply
Male 3,255
@WHOISIT

The progression captures look contrived, You can see the follicles in the skin, the step by step looks like a pencil and eraser used on a photo. I mean, if it`s not fake then why is there fringing (an artifact from photography) along the edges of the earrings?

I don`t know. I couldn`t say for sure unless I was standing with him when he made it (or photographed it) but if you put a gun to my head I would have to say fake.

0
Reply
Female 1,142
Truly unbelievable.
Although if I could paint as realistically as he, I`d rather produce more... fantastical pieces, I suppose you could say.
But, that`s just me. ^^
0
Reply
Male 4,393
how is it fake Zerocyde?.....
0
Reply
Male 483
holy crap! it looks so fake but i am inclined to believe it is real..
0
Reply
Male 3,255
Yea, I`m sorry, but this is fake.
0
Reply
Male 3,255
I still think this is fake.
0
Reply
Male 695
this is hard to believe. if it is in fact true, simply amazing!
0
Reply
Female 1,441
Thats really amazing. But I wouldnt want to spend a ton of money on a portrait that looks exactly like a photograph.
0
Reply
Female 4,447
Hyperrealism at it`s finest.
0
Reply
Male 36
Seems like repost...either way, old and seen before. Also, this is not art. Da Vinci created art, where the final product was something amazing. This on the other, the final product is the same as taking a picture with a camera, being the making of it is amazing. I guess its cool, but I would like to admire the painting more than the painter
0
Reply
Female 198
He didn`t make up a person, he worked off of a photograph. Additionally, there are new technoligies, tools, and techniques available today that Da Vinci did not have access to. It`s impressive, but it`s no Da Vinci.
0
Reply
Female 455
Um, I think you mean `Da` Vinci...

Nice post though.

0
Reply
Male 219
That`s some sexy ass hot peice of painting there.
0
Reply
Male 96
Well i`m impressed....I cant even paint an unrealistic woman let alone anything like this. Nice work ;)
0
Reply
Male 1,053
Wow
i WISH i could do this :)
0
Reply
Male 543
Old repost maybe?
drating cool? oh yesh.
0
Reply
Female 15,763
Still incredible...
He like, made up a whole person.
0
Reply
Male 534
I`ve seen this before. I`m still in awe at how they could have done it. Better than Di Vinci, I think.
0
Reply
Male 1,620
Link: Leonardo di Vinci Sucked Compared to This Artist [Rate Link] - OK, maybe Dru Blair isn`t as great as di Vinci and the Mona Lisa, but this guy creates an incredibly lifelike portrait.
0
Reply