Don't know if anyone saw this yet but I just came across it on Reddit. Artist painting a huge painting of what looks like honey covering a woman's face.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/z2ij31/hyper_realistic_painting_by_artist_fabiano_millani/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

A talented artist. I had been curious about any art paintings with some element of mud or mess, etc., but this is probably the only example I've seen. Very rare, especially if you're interested in older paintings. If there's some Old Master painting featuring a food fight or similar scene, I've certainly never seen it.

That is some very talented airbrush work there. The reflection in the honey is excellent.

First: really fun/engaging, colorful, cute, sexy image, for sure...but, I am not sure how much of it was actually 'painted' in the conventional sense; it seems to have been produced with some digital photo rendering process. Note that we see him only begin each element of the painting, then the image fades to a 'completed' rendering of each component (the eyes, hair, nose, etc.). Video editing makes it seem like he is some master realist painter (no doubt talented and great with colors, but...)

as one commenter observed:

"there is def skill involved. but hyper realism is often just a technique backed up with... projectors and printers. Like... he wasn't free hand painting all those details. Probably came from a high def photo, rendered in photoshop, then whenever he gets to a new section of the painting, paints a highly detailed "paint by numbers" reference.

it's why you see the pencil lines on every close up. Also probably why his seating position is so off center. in that he's used to working with a projector on. "

Well, it's fairly common for artists to pencil sketch on canvas before applying paint, so I don't hold that against him. As for other tools and aids, a variety of devices have been used over the centuries to aid artists, such as the camera lucida, which basically allowed artists to "trace" the subject without lifting their eyes away from the canvas. Artist David Hockney's book on the Old Masters suggests Renaissance artists used concave mirrors and other devices to project images of their subjects. It all sounds like "cheating," until you try one of these "aids" yourself, and discover it's not quite as easy as it looks. Some of those aids might even make the artist's work harder, or be more trouble than there worth.

But anyway, if the artist is mixing their own paint, and using their own brush strokes on the canvas, and not misrepresenting the medium (e.g., claiming a digital work is a painting) they deserve full credit for the finished product, regardless of any supposed aids or tools that helped them along the way. That is, unless the process is more important to the critic than the finished product (such as for those who appreciate Warhol's rudely defiled works specifically because of the rude things he did while creating them).

I'm not a fan of "digital art," so once you start throwing images into photoshop and re-touching that way, it's a different medium, but that doesn't seem to be the case here; the artist is using techniques consistent with classical portraiture painting, although he is probably working from a photo rather than a live subject. But if digital art can sell for millions, I don't really have a problem with an artist who might use devices to aid in painting. That being said, I generally don't like when artists paint portraits from photos. People pose very differently for photos than they do for paintings. 9 times out of 10 I can spot it right away when an artist has painted from a photo.

That is amazing. As an artist, I know just how hard that really is to do and no, I can't do it that well, not even if you give me an outline to trace or a super-high-res photo.

Nessie

God that's insane.

ClassicTVcollector: "artist is using techniques consistent with classical portraiture painting"...possibly (as with your example of Renaissance painters using reflecting mirrors)...however, we simply do not know what his technique was, since the video ALWAYS fades to a completed section of the painting; we see ONLY the first minor brush strokes of what will become the (fade to) completed segment. That was not an accident (more likely a finesse move to hide his technique). Note: those of use who have by now seen thousands of wam images, can easily recognize a photo source for a given painting.

Anyways, some early painters did use projection techniques, but a few, like Michelangelo, did not. There is a story (perhaps apocryphal) that this one Florence church put out call seeking an artist to create a series of religious paintings for the interior of the church. Scores of artists showed up for the public 'audition' -- displaying examples of their work. Late in the day, Michelangelo shows up, with nothing but a piece of chalk in his hand. He approaches a wall and draws a perfect circle. He won the painting commission.

There are other artists/painters that also do wam art (and who might/might not be using photos), but do so with their own expressionistic/impressionistic techniques, renderings, and vision. Many examples have been posted here in the past. The results are still compelling/appealing (but no 'photo-realistic' duplication of a photo).

Yep, the Reddit video is very short. I checked YouTube, and the artist has a page with several lengthy videos of him working in real time. I'm convinced he's the real deal, not a trickster, but decide for yourself: his account is @FabianoMillani



I love realism, but would also be interested in seeing any other paintings with a similar theme. Feel free to post links if you know of any, or I can try searching the forum.

Will check out his YT vids, for sure. As for other artists using wam themes: alas, I have only a few photos which show some partial nudity and which I can't post here (and no links or watermarks).