Stripey Posted October 4, 2005 Report Share Posted October 4, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4305438.stmbest news story today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 4, 2005 Report Share Posted October 4, 2005 at the end of the day all he's done is copy the pose of the figures in a tutorial book. which is what anyone working with a model, photograph or sketch would do. It's not like he copied a whole painting brushstroke by brushstroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 I actually spoke to a guy who met him that claimed he projects photos of people onto canvas then paints over the top, I remember thinking at the time - what a con, I could do that! Looking at the 2 pics on that article that could well be what he did there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me and Parvati Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 So, paying two people to pose on a beach in order to paint them is OK, but painting two people posing in a photograph isn't. Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 at the end of the day all that really matters is that his paintings are dull.incidentally check out calum colvin to see great use of painting over projected photographs:http://www.calumcolvin.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 So' date=' paying two people to pose on a beach in order to paint them is OK, but painting two people posing in a photograph isn't. Hmm.[/quote']I think you missed the point...he copied "someone elses pose / arrangement / picture" and passed it off as his own.as for copying by projection, I don't have a problem with that....I think dave's hit the nail on the head, Vettriano's work is just dull, and lifeless...hopper (who he wants to emulate) had atmosphere in his paintings, Vettriano just does hidden faces...It's hard to explain, but he's just never cut the mustard for me.once again, it's a taste thing...(bar the straigt plagerism of copying someone elses drawing, and pretending it's your own...or saying you were "influenced" by it, but in reality COPYING it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragudave Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 Jack V can't be that bad, given that he makes Methil and Leven look good in his pics.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 I think you missed the point...he copied "someone elses pose / arrangement / picture" and passed it off as his own.as for copying by projection' date=' I don't have a problem with that....I think dave's hit the nail on the head, Vettriano's work is just dull, and lifeless...hopper (who he wants to emulate) had atmosphere in his paintings, Vettriano just does hidden faces...It's hard to explain, but he's just never cut the mustard for me.once again, it's a taste thing...(bar the straigt plagerism of copying someone elses drawing, and pretending it's your own...or saying you were "influenced" by it, but in reality COPYING it.)[/quote']ah hopper, really is one of my absolutely favourite artists and is probably partly responsible for my fondness of americana. never have petrol pumps looked so good. vettriano just steals hoppers colours but forgets to add the life, light, framing and character to his paintings. hoppers paintings tell stories, there's people in them whereas vettriano's are just boring flat landscapes with people shapes in them. there's no interest in the people he portrays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.