oil on canvas? you're got to be kidding me this is amazing! at firts I thought it was photo, an interesting photo..and than I see it was done traditionally..I mean..Stunning! ) Really, really great job!..it deserves to be a daily deviaton
As someone who works with 3D modeling I can say this is clearly a 3D model itself, a major indicator is the deform on the right shoulder and armpit, anyone with such 'apparent' talent would know how shoulders work and draw it as such.
I see what you are talking about and at these resolutions I had to admit you had a point so I went searching.
Looks like he has been doing this successfully under scrutiny for a lot of money for a long time. Near the end of this video you can see a close up of the corner of one of the paintings with his name in the corner. I'm not a painter but I am going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty darn sure that is paint on the same type of painting as this is here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K75h_… (make sure it is at top resolution)
So since he is clearly capable of producing similar paintings to the one pictured here I can't see why he would risk his reputation by "faking" this one.
Even though I have decided this is most likely legitimate I hope you understand I am not making this reply to mock you or your opinion in anyway. On the contrary I definitely saw what you were speaking of and that is why I dug deeper. Even though this gentleman turned out to be legitimate as technology becomes more accessible it wouldn't surprise me if others do fake things in this way more and more so I thank you for using your expertise in keeping an eye out.
Ah, thank you for your well though out reply, Yes he definitely looks capable of doing this type of work based on that video and confuses me why he would, perhaps pressure to release more work or deadlines? ...but still I'm positive this is a render with an added layer of his own personal touches, I've had a good look at his art to be sure I'm not falsely accusing ( which I still may be ) and there are lots of suspect pieces, take danilomartinis.deviantart.com/… for example, supposed to be acrylic on canvas but every segment is a perfect replica down to the last pixel [ - body image -> image pasted - flipped horizontally - back/white changed around -> whole image copied and pasted over and over ]...
Past reviews have mentioned the likeness of his paintings to computer generated imagery but the few I've read haven't suggested faking...
So I have thought some more about it.
Wikipedia says it is traditional for painters to use models and sketch onto their canvases before before painting over them in the past. So lets say he, or a friend, creates a computer generated image to be used as a "model" and then he very carefully sketches and or resketches this image onto his canvas then painstakingly does the adult version of what we all did in grade school. Also some of his canvases are quite large and these shrunk down and possibly compressed images aren't showing the very tiny line errors that can be seen in some of the video close-ups (unfortunately the videos had crappy quality... )
By this process I think you might admit it is at least /POSSIBLE/ that such painting might be produced. And if he's been up to it long enough it might explain why he simply copied anatomy "errors" over from the generated imagery.
If true this might be disappointing, to those of use hoping for living human models used by a painting genius to create mind bending imagery, but not really against the "rules" of this traditional art form which were formed before the possibility of using a generated object/person as a life model was even a possibility. He, perhaps for this very reason, doesn't go into his process on his various sites (less I missed a spot on my quick swing through) so maybe if this is what he is doing then in his mind he is following the "rules" while abusing their spirit a bit.
If he has in fact found a way to "print" a cg image directly onto his canvases (which would be an unconventional surface to be sure) and then paint over them then yeah he has gone even farther with his violation of what he is allowing us to believe with his silence.
This is all just theorizing for fun though. I am not entirely convinced yet that he is doing these things (though the image you posted was fairly convincing at that resolution assuming its not a print of the original canvas to begin with...). But since you are strongly convinced there wasn't much point, or much fun , going forth with the conversation without making the assumption that he was doing /something/. I haven't made the effort to increase the depth of my search on him yet though so maybe if I get bored at some point I will find some statement or video showing his process or some other evidence.
I do not havevideoof the workin progress, butI have no problemsdoing it, I have somephotos of the preparation, drawing andcoloring,ifyou're interestedI'll send yousome picturesforemail. However,start from thepencil drawingand thenstartcoloringin oil,is a classic technique,longforthe chessboardbutI have nothing tohide. Sorry for my bad english
I see, that goes well with one of my theories. As I was the "defense attorney" in this fun little debate you don't really have to convince me as much as the public. I'm already on your side but was running out of evidence for my side of the debate.
You are getting so good at what you do that images displayed online at reduced resolution are starting to make actual computer generated imagery artists start to have doubts as to its origins. If having your process on display really doesn't bother you then perhaps it would be helpful to your future public to film the creation of one or two future pieces and post it on Youtube. Or if you wish, posting those photos of the preparation would be a good start. Sending them to me alone, who is only one person and one that already felt it was traditional, would not have much effect on the opinions of the community as a whole let alone my debate partner who does not believe it to be traditional.
But only if you are comfortable and it is not too inconvenient. This was just a fun debate between two of us silly deviants and a fairly mild and gentlemanly one by Deviantart standards. Its a complement to your abilities that people are having trouble discerning their source.
No problem. "Bad english" helps authenticate that you fit the profile of who Danilo Martinis is supposed to be. Since impostors are another of the many problems that plague this poor overworked site called DeviantArt. Though with the many links on your profile that wasn't a likely possibility. But we try to be on guard here. There are so many users verses staff on this site that the communities only real defense is the community itself. Which is why we sometimes get debates like this in the comments. Most of us MEAN well most of the time...
Thank you for taking such a personal interest in our conversation. It is always a great thing, amongst non-troll gentlemanly sorts anyway, when accomplished artists take the time to communicate with the community! ^_^
I hope my debate partner KittyfairieFan also appreciates the effort. I look forward to your future endeavors sir. ((and if you go with the Youtube plan remember to make sure it has a decent resolution so we can see the lines and textures well or much of your effort will be wasted!))
pixologic.com/zbrush/features/… If you look at this image you'll see what 3D models usually look like after UV mapping but before texture is applied, your typical checkered board guide, this is another reason why I'm so convinced, every checkered board female image of his 'seems' to have the same shape to it convincing me it's the same character model just rendered in different positions and different angles.
I agree it's definitely a possibility, I would guess more though if there are originals on canvas and not canvas prints that he would have used a projector to trace the image so well on canvas or canvas printed then a paint over.
I couldn't find much on him myself, but I did find this on his facebook www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi… but this doesn't convince me, more of a cover yourself/trace with projector pencil image to convince those reviewers you mentioned that he's genuine...
I guess until we see an original on canvas I will be convinced they are most likely renders with an added layer via photoshop since his exhibit could have been canvas prints.
Your replies have been very enjoyable and well thought out, tis a shame I'm so stubborn, thanks for the conversation also. :^)