Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Photo realistic images of Hong Kong
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
This paintings, if they are, are truly fabulous. It's a shame they seem unsigned but that's a by the by...
My intrigue is, in how he is actually making such detailed and wonderful images. Does anyone know? Is it great skill with acrylics? I hope it's not photo manipulation, which is my fear, because that would spoil it in my view. I like to think people can PAINT this well. I know Dali could because I've seen them.
D
Posted
The series in the gallery? I think they are extraordinarily skillful but in a way the artist lets themselves down.
The artist claims to have been trained in illustration, and that's what these are, super illustrative and I am in awe of the ability but I think two things let the paintings down. First the compositions are clutter, there is never an obvious focal point. Which really is made worse by point two, everything has the same weight of line and the colours are uniform from one edge to the other, no variation in light.
To me they are heartless, but the artist is one step from complete mastery of his paints. I like tight painting as much as I admire loose, but as an art teacher would say "We don't paint objects we paint light" and that seems to evade the work.
I am definitely not having a dig at them, I would love to be in their situation but given their ability I would be looking to the masters and how they compose and use light and harnessing a few of those idea's myself. Just my opinion, and everybody has one.
Posted
I have two favourite pictures of the village of my birth, Woolton south Liverpool. Prints of originals by E Scott Jones which appeared in a Lancashire magazine. Intrigued by the realism I made enquiries and it turned out they were photographs which were manipulated [very well done] to look like paintings. My informant told me that one actually included his car [Ford Sierra] parked on Allerton Road with his registration number included in the "painting." Still very good pictures but not art.
Sketcher
Posted
The water in these paintings is fantastic! The colour is remarkable accurate. I was in HongKong at Xmas, but saw very little of the old way of life. - All Skyscrapers. Only one tourist carrying red-sailed junk and the sails were really ragged. I'm glad that someone has preserved Hong Kong as it was.
Posted
I see a couple more have just been posted. He is depicting life in the less affluent suburbs of Hong Kong yes. Almost certainly painted from a photograph as reference (nothing wrong with that). BUT, you already have the photograph, so why do you want to duplicate it in a style verging on photorealism?
I would have preferred the artist to have been more expressive and passionate about his subject matter, it is good subject matter to work from, and he is very talented at what he does. These don't excite me at all, and leave me largely uninspired which is disappointing, the subject itself, plus the elevated camera angle is indeed interesting.
A somewhat controversial subject that has been debated on this forum more than once. This is of course my personal view of which I am entitled.
After having a closer look at them, they are not particularly photorealistic, more accurate representations than anything else - they are good mind you in their own way, but just not a style that excites me.
Edited
by alanbickley
Posted
<h4 style="display: block; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.3em; font-size: 1.3em; color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-family: "Open Sans"; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">I think that we should give credit to the artist in question . His name is Lee Kwong Tim Jackson. </h4>
Posted
They are not my cup of tea either but I must say I do like his Marks of Time (if I've got the title correct) which I find full of interest and even some intrigue. Yes he has great skill but I am a little uncomfortable when discussing the realism verses artistic ability debate. Okay I know photos weren't around at the time but even Canaletto's work is arguably veering on the realism (illustrative?) side of the debated as is the work of many other masters.
Posted
These comments should go on the Gallery so that the artist can respond to them - he may not wish to visit the forum.
I don't think the paintings are photo-realistic anyway: I have no idea how he produces them, but it seems quite feasible to me that they're simply watercolours on the basis of very exact drawing.