Photorealism: Is it possible?
January 15, 2012 8:21 AM Subscribe
Is it possible for an average joe to practice long enough that they can paint a photorealistic picture? How long would it take? Where should I start?
I'm interesting in doing this and I'm wondering if it's a goal that's actually achievable in my lifetime. I'm 20s, so if it takes 20 years great. If it takes 40 years I'm probably out of luck. Maybe it's a lot less complicated than it looks? I have some background in art but it's so minimal and was so long ago that I wouldn't count it.
If this is a realistic goal, where should I begin? Painting classes? Drawing classes? How many hours per day should I practice?
I'm interesting in doing this and I'm wondering if it's a goal that's actually achievable in my lifetime. I'm 20s, so if it takes 20 years great. If it takes 40 years I'm probably out of luck. Maybe it's a lot less complicated than it looks? I have some background in art but it's so minimal and was so long ago that I wouldn't count it.
If this is a realistic goal, where should I begin? Painting classes? Drawing classes? How many hours per day should I practice?
I don't think it's really a destination, so much as a journey. The great Chuck Jones was still attending drawing classess in his 70's.
No matter how short or long it is, it is the journey which matters, and the journey should be enjoyable even if you don't complete it.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:59 AM on January 15, 2012 [3 favorites]
No matter how short or long it is, it is the journey which matters, and the journey should be enjoyable even if you don't complete it.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:59 AM on January 15, 2012 [3 favorites]
It's worth noting that most photorealists use a technique that makes things a lot easier than just having the ability to paint really well. They divide the canvas into a number of small squares, and divide the photo they're workng from with the same grid, then reproduce each square of the photograph onto the canvas. This makes it quite a bit more manageable than just being able to draw a photograph. Chuck Close even began using that grid as part of his work.
Of course, you'll still need art classes and experience to know how to mix paint and colors and get brush technique, but I don't think it's impossible at all for you to be able to paint this within 10 years.
If you're not actually talking about the Photorealist movement in American art, and are just wondering how long it would take to be able to make a fairly realistic looking painting, that's a different answer.
posted by LionIndex at 9:01 AM on January 15, 2012 [5 favorites]
Of course, you'll still need art classes and experience to know how to mix paint and colors and get brush technique, but I don't think it's impossible at all for you to be able to paint this within 10 years.
If you're not actually talking about the Photorealist movement in American art, and are just wondering how long it would take to be able to make a fairly realistic looking painting, that's a different answer.
posted by LionIndex at 9:01 AM on January 15, 2012 [5 favorites]
Yeah, it's an achievable goal. It's not even that difficult, really. But this is like asking, "is it possible for the average Joe to become fluent in Mandarin Chinese?" I mean, sure it is, but why do you want to? The ability to physically create a photorealistic image isn't really a goal of itself, it's a tool for communication. Is there something in particular you want to communicate? Is photorealistic painting the best way to communicate it? Another metaphor: anyone can learn to be a proficient knitter, but if you don't especially want a bunch of sweaters around, why bother?
posted by milk white peacock at 11:35 AM on January 15, 2012
posted by milk white peacock at 11:35 AM on January 15, 2012
Lionindex is right if you want to make a photorealistic picture a la the movement known as photorealism. Get a photo you want to reproduce, square it up, and copy it one square at a time on your canvas. It ain't all that difficult ;) If, on the other hand, you want to look at the 3D world and, without use of a camera, directly depict what you see in some sense "photographically" (and here you will soon begin to wonder just what that might mean), then you'll need a host of skills as bonsai forest says.
posted by londongeezer at 2:16 PM on January 15, 2012
posted by londongeezer at 2:16 PM on January 15, 2012
Adding on to what LionIndex and londongeezer said, a trick that I was taught is to turn the photo you're copying upside-down. That helps you focus on replicating the precise shapes and lines of the image without your brain getting all Gestalt on you and saying "nah, there's no way a leaf really looks like THAT."
posted by enlarged to show texture at 2:47 PM on January 15, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by enlarged to show texture at 2:47 PM on January 15, 2012 [1 favorite]
Absolutely possible. Depending on how your brain works with your hands and eyes, it will take different amounts of time, and you might soon find that you have changed your goal and wish to make something beautiful or interesting instead of or in addition to photorealistic, but if you stick to it it would definitely take less than 20 years. If you practice absolutely every day, perhaps for one or two hours, with discrete goals in mind every time, you'll feel comfortable exploring in a matter of months.
Start out with some classes, just because the instructors will have more knowledge of the materials than you. If you can swing it, find an actual art school with open admission and take both a painting and a drawing class simultaneously. If that's not available to you, try community centers and similar and start out with a drawing class. Tell your instructor your goals and see if they have any resources to help you learn - books, libraries of examples, different tools and mediums for you to play with on your own time. Don't ignore the assignments of the class in the interest of following your own goal - you will need to build up basic techniques and learn how to see things differently before you can jump right into photorealism. Stylized images have value beyond looking cool, they help you learn how to break down what we see into discrete elements, allowing us to recreate them in an achievable way. I say to start with drawing because it's easier to jump right into it. A piece of charcoal and paper is less complicated than paint and brush and canvas and thinner and palette and so-on. It's also good for most people to start with lines instead of shapes, which is what painting really is. But if you find that you think differently about putting images to surface than your average neighbor, don't hesitate to go change it up and start painting, probably with acrylics on canvas board.
Don't ever stop practicing. Carry an unlined sketchbook with you everywhere you go and draw whatever you see, constantly. When I was in art school I had serious trouble drawing the human figure - I could do a still life or a landscape or draping fabric, elaborate textures and light no problem, but people never came naturally to me. So I dedicated myself for a semester and drew people every day. Sometimes I'd start with a photo because working from a still image is easier, but mostly I'd sketch people waiting for the train or sitting on the train or going to the train stop - my commute involved a lot of discrete staring. Within four months of this I felt infinitely more comfortable drawing people, but also just drawing everything else, too. By the time the semester was up I felt well-armed to depict almost anything I wanted to. But then I stopped practicing and within a year my skill dropped off. I never quite got as bad as I had been but I certainly don't feel like I could draw anything anymore. You need to dedicate yourself to it. A lifetime of practice will absolutely come through in your work, so it's worth it. Just start as soon as you can!
posted by Mizu at 5:06 PM on January 15, 2012
Start out with some classes, just because the instructors will have more knowledge of the materials than you. If you can swing it, find an actual art school with open admission and take both a painting and a drawing class simultaneously. If that's not available to you, try community centers and similar and start out with a drawing class. Tell your instructor your goals and see if they have any resources to help you learn - books, libraries of examples, different tools and mediums for you to play with on your own time. Don't ignore the assignments of the class in the interest of following your own goal - you will need to build up basic techniques and learn how to see things differently before you can jump right into photorealism. Stylized images have value beyond looking cool, they help you learn how to break down what we see into discrete elements, allowing us to recreate them in an achievable way. I say to start with drawing because it's easier to jump right into it. A piece of charcoal and paper is less complicated than paint and brush and canvas and thinner and palette and so-on. It's also good for most people to start with lines instead of shapes, which is what painting really is. But if you find that you think differently about putting images to surface than your average neighbor, don't hesitate to go change it up and start painting, probably with acrylics on canvas board.
Don't ever stop practicing. Carry an unlined sketchbook with you everywhere you go and draw whatever you see, constantly. When I was in art school I had serious trouble drawing the human figure - I could do a still life or a landscape or draping fabric, elaborate textures and light no problem, but people never came naturally to me. So I dedicated myself for a semester and drew people every day. Sometimes I'd start with a photo because working from a still image is easier, but mostly I'd sketch people waiting for the train or sitting on the train or going to the train stop - my commute involved a lot of discrete staring. Within four months of this I felt infinitely more comfortable drawing people, but also just drawing everything else, too. By the time the semester was up I felt well-armed to depict almost anything I wanted to. But then I stopped practicing and within a year my skill dropped off. I never quite got as bad as I had been but I certainly don't feel like I could draw anything anymore. You need to dedicate yourself to it. A lifetime of practice will absolutely come through in your work, so it's worth it. Just start as soon as you can!
posted by Mizu at 5:06 PM on January 15, 2012
Ditto to everybody who's already said, "Sure, this is doable".
Doable, that is, if by "photorealism" you mean "reasonably realistic, competent hobbyist paintings", and you're talking about imagery of average complexity like typical landscapes and scenery, florals, still lives and even basic portraits, then, sure, there are millions of ordinary (and exceptional) folks of all ages learning to do this every year, using how-to books and videos, taking workshops, etc. And as everyone seems to agree, you start with drawing, and you could, if you're handy, accomplish a lot quickly with an hour or so every day of well-directed practice, and frequent weekends dedicated to picture-making—realism doesn't go fast.
(Speaking as both a long-ago fine-art major, and a sometimes drawing and painting college instructor, I'd say you might very well go faster doing this on your own with DIY instructional materials chosen to match your specific goals, than by taking the luck of the draw with whatever local classes you can find. There's TONS of excellent material out there these days; I'd be happy to point you at some if you like.)
Everybody so far seems to be assuming that by "painting" you mean being able to sit down in front of your subject or your photo reference with a brush or a drawing tool in hand, and reproduce what you see, eye-balling the world. Reasonable, since this is what most anybody means when they talk about being able to paint or draw. And the idea that your goals and interests may change once you get on this crowded escalator towards "learning to paint", that's almost a certainty. You'll certainly stop judging paintings only by comparing them to photographs. The skills to do that are going to take work and practice, but they are quite learnable, not magic.
But surely all that is pretty obvious. Painting as a hobby is totally ubiquitous, and reasonable "realism" is by far the most common style these days… And lots of folks learn to take realism pretty far towards a photographic level of detail, which is what most people mean by "photorealistic" painting: lots of carefully observed and rendered detail and not so much impressionistic fuzziness or loose suggestion (which is harder to master than it may look); but apart from that, a pretty wide range of styles can fill the realistic bill.
So, what if what you really mean is you want to make painted images that actually look like sharp-focused photographs, to the point of being hard to tell from photos? Or maybe you want images that are jaw-droppingly "realistic" and only use the term "photorealistic" because it's the best one handy to suggest the illusion of reality, light on real objects, in 2 dimensions, but you don't precisely mean looks like a photo…?
Either way, I'd say that this is both easier than you might think and very difficult, possibly not even doable unless you're both very determined and blessed with somewhat better than ordinary eyes and hands.
Easier in the sense (as others have said) that reproducing a photo is a purely mechanical problem, as is rendering the 3-D world onto a 2-D surface. Cameras show exactly how, and you as a "painter" can make good use of both photo hardware and concepts. You can take a photo then project it onto your surface, then just trace it to start the transfer (you don't NEED to learn to draw). You can blow the photo up on your computer and do all kinds of other digital tricks to isolate and capture a reduced set of the exact colors in your image, and you can think in grids like Photoshop or Chuck Close, or in tiny puzzle-piece shapes like paint-by-numbers or Vermeer as you lay down flat areas of color to exactly match your reference (you don't NEED to learn to handle a brush beautifully, you just need to learn to match colors). In other words, you could skip most of the skill-development and all the mystique and take a purely mechanical approach.
Very difficult in the sense that however you approach this level of reproduction, the subtleties involved in achieving startling realism are going to keep unfolding themselves to your perceptions to the point that you may begin to find them beyond your grasp. Take a good look around and see how many really jaw-droppingly realistic painters are out there compared to the numbers of folks who would do that kind of work if they could. I think you'll find that there are an amazing number of those who can (as far as I can tell, we live in a golden age as far as skill at realism is concerned, though not in an age that values it at the highest levels), but millions who only wish they could, and not for lack of trying.
posted by dpcoffin at 6:55 PM on January 15, 2012
Doable, that is, if by "photorealism" you mean "reasonably realistic, competent hobbyist paintings", and you're talking about imagery of average complexity like typical landscapes and scenery, florals, still lives and even basic portraits, then, sure, there are millions of ordinary (and exceptional) folks of all ages learning to do this every year, using how-to books and videos, taking workshops, etc. And as everyone seems to agree, you start with drawing, and you could, if you're handy, accomplish a lot quickly with an hour or so every day of well-directed practice, and frequent weekends dedicated to picture-making—realism doesn't go fast.
(Speaking as both a long-ago fine-art major, and a sometimes drawing and painting college instructor, I'd say you might very well go faster doing this on your own with DIY instructional materials chosen to match your specific goals, than by taking the luck of the draw with whatever local classes you can find. There's TONS of excellent material out there these days; I'd be happy to point you at some if you like.)
Everybody so far seems to be assuming that by "painting" you mean being able to sit down in front of your subject or your photo reference with a brush or a drawing tool in hand, and reproduce what you see, eye-balling the world. Reasonable, since this is what most anybody means when they talk about being able to paint or draw. And the idea that your goals and interests may change once you get on this crowded escalator towards "learning to paint", that's almost a certainty. You'll certainly stop judging paintings only by comparing them to photographs. The skills to do that are going to take work and practice, but they are quite learnable, not magic.
But surely all that is pretty obvious. Painting as a hobby is totally ubiquitous, and reasonable "realism" is by far the most common style these days… And lots of folks learn to take realism pretty far towards a photographic level of detail, which is what most people mean by "photorealistic" painting: lots of carefully observed and rendered detail and not so much impressionistic fuzziness or loose suggestion (which is harder to master than it may look); but apart from that, a pretty wide range of styles can fill the realistic bill.
So, what if what you really mean is you want to make painted images that actually look like sharp-focused photographs, to the point of being hard to tell from photos? Or maybe you want images that are jaw-droppingly "realistic" and only use the term "photorealistic" because it's the best one handy to suggest the illusion of reality, light on real objects, in 2 dimensions, but you don't precisely mean looks like a photo…?
Either way, I'd say that this is both easier than you might think and very difficult, possibly not even doable unless you're both very determined and blessed with somewhat better than ordinary eyes and hands.
Easier in the sense (as others have said) that reproducing a photo is a purely mechanical problem, as is rendering the 3-D world onto a 2-D surface. Cameras show exactly how, and you as a "painter" can make good use of both photo hardware and concepts. You can take a photo then project it onto your surface, then just trace it to start the transfer (you don't NEED to learn to draw). You can blow the photo up on your computer and do all kinds of other digital tricks to isolate and capture a reduced set of the exact colors in your image, and you can think in grids like Photoshop or Chuck Close, or in tiny puzzle-piece shapes like paint-by-numbers or Vermeer as you lay down flat areas of color to exactly match your reference (you don't NEED to learn to handle a brush beautifully, you just need to learn to match colors). In other words, you could skip most of the skill-development and all the mystique and take a purely mechanical approach.
Very difficult in the sense that however you approach this level of reproduction, the subtleties involved in achieving startling realism are going to keep unfolding themselves to your perceptions to the point that you may begin to find them beyond your grasp. Take a good look around and see how many really jaw-droppingly realistic painters are out there compared to the numbers of folks who would do that kind of work if they could. I think you'll find that there are an amazing number of those who can (as far as I can tell, we live in a golden age as far as skill at realism is concerned, though not in an age that values it at the highest levels), but millions who only wish they could, and not for lack of trying.
posted by dpcoffin at 6:55 PM on January 15, 2012
Response by poster: Here's what I mean when I say photorealism. It sounds like I got the terms mixed up. Still ,the advice is quite helpful, thank you so much!
posted by Pericardium at 8:14 PM on January 15, 2012
posted by Pericardium at 8:14 PM on January 15, 2012
This is precisely one of the images I was thinking of when I referred to contemporary "jaw-dropping" realism. If this is your goal, I'd say it takes more than practice, even years of practice.
posted by dpcoffin at 8:49 PM on January 15, 2012
posted by dpcoffin at 8:49 PM on January 15, 2012
However, to get in the game (of which your example is a particularly extraordinary example) definitely is doable, thousands are doing it (and most of them are still mighty impressed by that example, which wasn't made possible simply by practicing harder or longer than all the other airbrush maestros loose in the world).
There's no doubt in my mind that anyone can get pretty good at airbrushing, or any other artistic skill, from sheer effort and determination. And airbrush is what I'd be working with if that kind of realism was my goal. Still, rising to the top is by definition rare in any game.
posted by dpcoffin at 9:33 PM on January 15, 2012
There's no doubt in my mind that anyone can get pretty good at airbrushing, or any other artistic skill, from sheer effort and determination. And airbrush is what I'd be working with if that kind of realism was my goal. Still, rising to the top is by definition rare in any game.
posted by dpcoffin at 9:33 PM on January 15, 2012
Oh yes, erm, that will take... quite some time.
I would say that the average joe with normal hand-eye coordination and vision can accomplish that level of photorealism, but what wouldn't be average at all about that joe is how dedicated he or she is to the project. I know somebody (went to school with, though not the same year) who can get sort of close to the image you linked above, and that's all they've been doing for the past ten years, after a lifetime (twenty years) of dedicating themselves to more traditional levels of realism.
Take some basic drawing and painting classes to feel out what you really want to spend your time doing creatively. If that's what speaks to you, you're going to have to really go for it.
posted by Mizu at 9:37 PM on January 15, 2012
I would say that the average joe with normal hand-eye coordination and vision can accomplish that level of photorealism, but what wouldn't be average at all about that joe is how dedicated he or she is to the project. I know somebody (went to school with, though not the same year) who can get sort of close to the image you linked above, and that's all they've been doing for the past ten years, after a lifetime (twenty years) of dedicating themselves to more traditional levels of realism.
Take some basic drawing and painting classes to feel out what you really want to spend your time doing creatively. If that's what speaks to you, you're going to have to really go for it.
posted by Mizu at 9:37 PM on January 15, 2012
Does take practice, but as these youtube vids show, the practice is iterative. That is, you never have a bad painting, just one that needs more iterations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV7JHQMDO-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXcFP-ca-3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMrTOXMgoPY&NR=1&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-TYO0cGFmQ
posted by at at 11:27 PM on January 15, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV7JHQMDO-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXcFP-ca-3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMrTOXMgoPY&NR=1&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-TYO0cGFmQ
posted by at at 11:27 PM on January 15, 2012
True, true… If you want to cut the time/challenge by a factor of at least 10, stick to digital media. Cuts the triumph, too, of course, but not at all by an equal amount; digitally is the only way most people will ever see your work anyhow—interesting times!
posted by dpcoffin at 12:02 AM on January 16, 2012
posted by dpcoffin at 12:02 AM on January 16, 2012
Hey, look , it's easy; you can take a class. Still, gotta wonder how many of Blair's students ever rival him… You don't get to be a star doing what anybody can do.
And if this really is where you want to go, add study-quality photography and lighting to your basic-skills-needed list. Gotta have a good reference to work from.
posted by dpcoffin at 12:33 AM on January 16, 2012
And if this really is where you want to go, add study-quality photography and lighting to your basic-skills-needed list. Gotta have a good reference to work from.
posted by dpcoffin at 12:33 AM on January 16, 2012
At the risk of overstaying my welcome in this thread, I feel compelled to clarify that I absolutely feel you should go for this goal as long as you have it. It looks like there are lots of quite specific resources to help, and I don't think it'd be too far wrong to say that no matter where you or anybody starts on a project for getting good at some artistic pursuit, they can definitely improve, and with lots of effort, drive and practice, improve way beyond what they can imagine at the start. They'll also inevitably discover things they're not so good at, stuff that seems forever out of reach, whatever… Straining at these restrictions is exactly what it's all about, IMO.
In short, your impulse and situation don't seem unreasonable to me at all; they seem like the stuff that any (maybe even every) artistic achievement is made of. So go!
posted by dpcoffin at 3:08 PM on January 16, 2012
In short, your impulse and situation don't seem unreasonable to me at all; they seem like the stuff that any (maybe even every) artistic achievement is made of. So go!
posted by dpcoffin at 3:08 PM on January 16, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
I imagine a lot of people might want to make the point that photography is probably the best way to achieve photorealism, and photorealism as a goal of painting is not necessarily the best goal if your underlying desire is to express yourself artistically.
But I also believe that if you take the drawing seriously, and really work at that for 3-4 years, you will get a much better sense of your ultimate goals as an artist. Which may or may not turn out to be photorealism. Drawing is the key. That's the bottom line.
posted by bonsai forest at 8:38 AM on January 15, 2012