Hi. I'm a newcomer here at Drawspace, but I've been drawing for a long time. I can't wait to join the community here.


My first topic here is on photorealistic art. I've always liked this area more than others (cubism, fantasy, etc.) because of how it allows us to communicate the world around us through the use of practical light, shadows, textures, and other real-world visual elements. I especially love the works of artists like Terry Redlin and Thomas Kinkane. One thing I've always wondered about, though, is the use of reference material, whether it's an in-person reference opportunity or drawing from a photo. I've always used printer copies of photos on the Internet or otherwise, but I have heard rumors of people drawing (or painting, for that matter) photorealistically without such reference.

I'm fairly sure this is very possible, but it seems to me that one would need some very detailed and almost scientific understandings about how light shines, how shadows stretch across surfaces, how various surfaces form/erode, etc.

Do any of you here have the ability to do this? What techniques would you recommend for me to learn so I can do it myself?

Hi and welcome to Drawspace.

Photorealistic drawing is generally done from photographs simply because of the time required to complete a competent image in that technique. It can be done from life to get the likeness/landscape, etc., but for details you would need a lot of time in close observation, so a combination of the two would be required. Terry Redlin and Thomas Kinkade provoke different responses in different people. They are representational artists, but not photorealists in my opinion. A photorealist who I had the pleasure of doing a class with was Armin Mersmann. Armin is one of those who I would call a true photorealist artist and he uses photos for the reasons outlined.

Whether you can draw photorealistically without references or from life, is that what you're asking? If so, I would say no. To draw anything from memory gives a twisted view as you have to rely on your mind to provide the image and your mind's image will likely be very different than reality and be swayed by different exposures to subject matter and your own interpretations of them.

I don't know of any artists who can create a photorealistic drawing from memory. Yes, some can draw interpretations of various identifiable images but without a reference or real life subject, it would be nigh impossible to put that level of information on paper. You would need to have intimate knowledge of a subject and have completed thousands of drawings of that same subject to be able to create every value, highlight, crease, crevice, etc. to make it a photorealistic drawing.

Practice of course will help you build information about how light affects objects and how techniques are used to create the shapes that you want to represent. All artwork is based on reality. The fantasy pieces are simply morphed into different shapes and colours to create a new image that your mind helps evolve. Its the same principle as in cartoons such as anime. You need to know anatomy and how the body moves, facial expression, how lighting affects clothes, hair, shadows, etc. Only then can you safely change or characterize the individual into something else. The same applies to the landscapes that Kinkade for instance, paints. He may have a concept, then would likely find reference images or real life places to sketch thumbnails, set up composition, lighting etc. Then he can go in and create the images that he does.

I'm not sure if that answers your question or not. My comment in any form of drawing is to simply practice. Use reality as your base and learn traditional techniques of how to apply mediums to supports. Explore by all means, but realize your limitations are based on your ability and your perception of imagination and reality.

Hi,
You have gotten advice from one of the best here at Drawspace from IslanderNL, the link to Armin Mersmann is very good because if you click the first group of drawings, the last item in the group is his method of operation described by him. It is worthwhile reading.
Good luck on your creative journey, hope to see you post in the forums.
Trish

I saw the link to Armin Mersmann. All I can say is WOW.
Thank you for broadening my horizon.

I agree with you on the point of Thomas Kinkade, since his paintings do look moderately representational; sometimes shapes and textures are approximate. But Terry Redlin seems to produce more realistic-looking imagery, though it may be modified slightly from reality to enhance light and color (I don't know if this would be considered exactly "fantastical" or not). That's how I see his work, and it's definitely closer to looking like reality than cubism and other more abstract forms of art.

Yes! That's what I've always experienced--that I usually get shapes, values, and textures that look close to reality, but not exactly "right on" (which is sometimes what I'd rather have). Thanks for your experienced advice on that. I had been hoping I wasn't doing something wrong by not being able to do so correctly. And thanks for the great link--that expanded my horizons, as well.

What is the definition of wrong art? There is art and the various interpretations of artists, in my opinion.

As a beginner to drawing and painting, I don't think I have much to add but here's my 2cents worth. I can not imagine trying to do a realistic drawing or painting without a reference of some kind, or what value there would be in such an effort. To spend hours and hours on a piece and not have it turn out as well as it could, would sort of defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

I'm glad it helped. Armin is one of my favourite artists.

Elena, I don't thing there is 'wrong' art, but we were talking about technique, not subject.