[InDepth]

Hey guys,

Just thought you might want to know that I have posted 26 wallpapers from Pin-up artist Drew Posada at the site. 11 of these are never before seen pieces. Come check it out:

http://www.critical-depth.com/opengallery-intro.asp

Enjoy!

Eric

------------------
Eric Rainey - Owner
In Depth Arts
http://www.critical-depth.com

[This message has been edited by InDepth (edited February 01, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by InDepth (edited February 01, 2001).]

[shardik]

those are cool but if those arent paintovers ill eat my hat!

------------------
-matt

[strata]

shard I'll help!

I don't really care if those are paintovers or not, they're bleeping fantastic end-result wise! oi oi oi oi oi

------------------
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

[Chapel]

Some of those are published comic covers. I don't know much about the artist, but I like his work that I've seen.

[Lunatique]

Ok, here's my 2 cents about the animosity towards the whole "paint over" thing:

How I feel about it really depends on who's doing it. If someone who's never learned their basics and uses it as a short cut to achieve results they are not capable of producing on their own, then it's bad. BUT, if it's a seasoned artist who uses it to save time, then it's ok. For example, many professional artists who are amazing painters(whether you like their style or not, they are technically extremely accomplished), such as Boris Vallejo and Norman Rockwell, traces their photo-reference to save time to have to draw them from scratch. They can very well have drawn it from scratch and get the same quality, but it just takes longer.

So, if they are paint overs, that's fine. As long as there are examples of what they can do when they don't paint over. That'll prove their ability.

The fact is, there are many artist out there(and here in the forum)who have good technical skills. Many of them can draw and paint photo-realistically. Whether doing a paintover, or painting it from scratch with references, the result will be pretty much the same. so, if you can't tell, what difference does it make? Either way, the skill is there. But of course, they would have other works to show their ability as well.

Now, if your work looks very amateurish when not painting over, then you are lying to yourself and to others.

There. Just my 2 cents.

[The Incredible MGC]

I don't know what to make of his work. He's talented...

But there's something about his work that has a "trashy" feel to it. Rather than drawings of life he is using junk retouched porn for his references?

So in the end I feel like his work would be rated on the same level as a really, really well-done black velvet painting.

Like I keep expecting to see a ... tiger on a black background. Or ... a painting of Elvis, in his collection...

Perhaps a nicely painted, sexy Elvis? heh

[The Incredible MGC]

And as far as "paintovers" go... I can see using a photo for reference (though using playboy for reference makes art seem fitting for a painting on the back of a lowrider truck)-

But does "paintover" mean painting on TOP of a photograph?

As an artist I'm fascinated that anyone would do such a thing... Paintovers... Mapping drawings onto cardboard cutout flat 3d shapes... This is a strange place. =)
<grin>