What's the point?

Technique. I clipped this not because I find it new or unbelievable but because of Dru Blair's illustration of technique. A lot of other artists, a lot of ads, are as realistic. While Dru might not be the ultimate authority on realistic craft, the way he shows the process of creating a realistic painting here (whether it's true or not) is simple- a convenient guide.

Dru Blair said that this is a class project and an unfinished painting. It's an exercise, meaning he can do better. If it's true then good for him. If it's not true then it doesn't matter to someone like me who's learning from his post.

It's funny how there is a longstanding debate on this in ot...

What's the point?

Technique. I clipped this not because I find it new or unbelievable but because of Dru Blair's illustration of technique. A lot of other artists, a lot of ads, are as realistic. While Dru might not be the ultimate authority on realistic craft, the way he shows the process of creating a realistic painting here (whether it's true or not) is simple- a convenient guide.

Dru Blair said that this is a class project and an unfinished painting. It's an exercise, meaning he can do better. If it's true then good for him. If it's not true then it doesn't matter to someone like me who's learning from his post.

It's funny how there is a longstanding debate on this in other websites. Some have created threads or accounts just to bash Dru Blair. You did ask the right question, enbar. What is the point? If these people don't care about Dru, I wonder why time and space, more importantly, is devoted to him. Hatred should have pushed these people to deprive Dru Blair of all the attention he's getting.

Btw, thanks for the info, TRN! I hope this is the last time I clip something you or anyone else has already clipped. I'm all for a unique Clipmarks.

I noticed something a little suspicious looking at the Tica images at Dru Blair's site. If one navigates to the workshop page, and examines the large image at the top, there is a defect in the model's clothing. Look at the top of the vertical seam on the side of the garment; it's frayed. I can't imagine why the artist would include such a distracting and unattractive element in the picture.

But, let's assume he did. Why is that element missing from the magazine cover image and the photo of the guys with the "original" painting? The magazine cover aside, the other two photos of the "original" painting are [i]different[/i[b]...

I noticed something a little suspicious looking at the Tica images at Dru Blair's site. If one navigates to the workshop page, and examines the large image at the top, there is a defect in the model's clothing. Look at the top of the vertical seam on the side of the garment; it's frayed. I can't imagine why the artist would include such a distracting and unattractive element in the picture.

But, let's assume he did. Why is that element missing from the magazine cover image and the photo of the guys with the "original" painting? The magazine cover aside, the other two photos of the "original" painting are different. How is that possible? It isn't.

Before responding that the large image is the "reference photo, review this a post from Dru on this page which, in part, reads:

Question by another poster: "... the center picture, surrounded by the "steps" ... Some people here (myself included) think it's just the reference picture because of the insane amount of detail, others think it's quite possible given the quality of your other work- which is indeed very, very good. A post has been made saying it was something like an April Fools' joke, meant to be humorous. So which one is it?"

Dru responds: " ... all the images on that page are photographs taken of the original painting, and yes, the amount of detail was insane."


Hmmmm. Insane indeed. There are other issues with the images. This was the most obvious flaw in this bit of trickery.

Apart from all that, at drublair.com, Dru says: "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."

Astounding. Photography can't be art. Huh. News to me.

Nearing completion of the painting, I decided to remove some of the elements I had already painted such as the nap of cloth next to her armpit. This unfinished painting is not without flaws, which are mercifully reduced by the computer screen's 72 dpi resolution.

You guys REALLY need to learn how to read. Dru states clearly near the bottom of the workshop page in the above quote that he purposely LEFT OUT that frayed edge of material near the models armpit area. THE LARGE image in the center of the workshop page IS the reference photo. That is ALSO why the frayed bit of cloth is missing from the time lapse workshop images (look at 6.0 hrs onwards) and also the Airbrush Actio...

Nearing completion of the painting, I decided to remove some of the elements I had already painted such as the nap of cloth next to her armpit. This unfinished painting is not without flaws, which are mercifully reduced by the computer screen's 72 dpi resolution.

You guys REALLY need to learn how to read. Dru states clearly near the bottom of the workshop page in the above quote that he purposely LEFT OUT that frayed edge of material near the models armpit area. THE LARGE image in the center of the workshop page IS the reference photo. That is ALSO why the frayed bit of cloth is missing from the time lapse workshop images (look at 6.0 hrs onwards) and also the Airbrush Action cover. Is it really that hard for you all to comprehend?

Nice tone there "The REAL Napster." No need to shout... the caps aren't really necessary.

I did read that explanation, but it struck me as at odds with what he claimed he was trying to accomplish. You'll notice that at 7 hours, it isn't planned. At 70 hours, it's there. And then he later removes it. Seems incongruous... odd... suspicious.

And Dru CLEARLY said: "...all the images on that page are photographs taken of the original painting..."

He states that this large image is not the reference photo on the very same workshop page you would have me reread: "...and the large image is the final painting after detail and skin texture are added..."

So, please don't tell me I "REALLY need to l...

Nice tone there "The REAL Napster." No need to shout... the caps aren't really necessary.

I did read that explanation, but it struck me as at odds with what he claimed he was trying to accomplish. You'll notice that at 7 hours, it isn't planned. At 70 hours, it's there. And then he later removes it. Seems incongruous... odd... suspicious.

And Dru CLEARLY said: "...all the images on that page are photographs taken of the original painting..."

He states that this large image is not the reference photo on the very same workshop page you would have me reread: "...and the large image is the final painting after detail and skin texture are added..."

So, please don't tell me I "REALLY need to learn how to read" unless you've done your reading.

I have been retouching photos in Photoshop every day for more than a dozen years. After examining the images, I am convinced that this has been faked.

My bad, didn't mean to shout in caps. I guess my definition of 'reference' in this instance is wrong. He did spell out for you the removal of the material as well as other details. But again: He is an artist. Artists can change their minds about their work in progress. When you are working with digital mediums (as in Photoshop) changes are easy. You can apply and remove your latest works as layers in a spilt second. When you are working with friskit film and an airbrush it's not that easy.

I am impressed that his work has fooled so many of you into thinking it's fake, I'll bet anyone here it's not. Like I said, my nephew attended his workshops and has actually seen and touched t...

My bad, didn't mean to shout in caps. I guess my definition of 'reference' in this instance is wrong. He did spell out for you the removal of the material as well as other details. But again: He is an artist. Artists can change their minds about their work in progress. When you are working with digital mediums (as in Photoshop) changes are easy. You can apply and remove your latest works as layers in a spilt second. When you are working with friskit film and an airbrush it's not that easy.

I am impressed that his work has fooled so many of you into thinking it's fake, I'll bet anyone here it's not. Like I said, my nephew attended his workshops and has actually seen and touched the original painting. I even ordered his DVD, his techniques are so impressive. Maybe all you non-believers can put your money where your mouths are and make the pilgrimage to the south and attend some of his classes. Then, maybe then- you'll believe. I know lots of people who used to claim the late Bob Ross was a fake too. If Dru gets his own TV show (like Bob had), then I guess you all can shut up once and for all.

to the real napster - no, it is not up to those of us who disbelieve to disprove. if an artist is going to claim he can make a painting that looks EXACTLY like a photograph, then it is up to the artist to prove that he did so, especially since he claims that recreating people was once his weak point. as gocatgo stated, when he puts up the original photo for a side by side comparison (or provides better photos of the art in progress - which he surely could have done without giving away his techniques), then perhaps I will believe his outrageous claim. why would he not do that? it makes no sense. he knows people are questioning whether it is a fake - if he can prove it isn't, which he sho...

to the real napster - no, it is not up to those of us who disbelieve to disprove. if an artist is going to claim he can make a painting that looks EXACTLY like a photograph, then it is up to the artist to prove that he did so, especially since he claims that recreating people was once his weak point. as gocatgo stated, when he puts up the original photo for a side by side comparison (or provides better photos of the art in progress - which he surely could have done without giving away his techniques), then perhaps I will believe his outrageous claim. why would he not do that? it makes no sense. he knows people are questioning whether it is a fake - if he can prove it isn't, which he should be able to do with something as simple as the original photograph, why doesn't he? i find it intriguing that he chooses to explain away all the telltale signs that it might be a photograph - but does not share the original photo. he is an incredible artist, based on his other work, but if he's done this, he's achieved something no one else in all of history has ever done and he should be ready, willing, and able to back up that claim with some simple proof.