Hardly. Such photorealistic portraits are impressive, and very impressive for a 13 yo boy, but nothing "extraordinary" to achieve, and much less a sign of an "once-in-generation genius".
The right technique, many hours devotion, and starting from around 6 would get similar results to most kids -- like tons of kids at 13 can play Chopin on the piano, and are not "once-in-generation geniuses", but run of the mill tiger-mom kids...
Even if the finishing wasn't done by an adult, I don't think it's the mark of genius. Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way.
If this is the sole work of the kid, he has a great eye and fantastic mechanical abilities - but 'once in a lifetime genius' may be overselling it just a bit.
Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art.
Most parts of art are mechanical in their core and can be automated. I don't think there's any reason to assume that he isn't a gifted artist while people who do nearly the same but just use other source material e.g. draw realistic images of dragons are considered as creative or those that just put some blots on a canvas - just look at images like "Violet, Green and Red". What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. And because of that, I don't see why it's necessary to criticize this boy for lacking artistic genius; this stuff is so extremely subjective that it says more about you than anything else.
The next step - mixing interesting ideas and concepts to create creative new art - can also be automated IMO.
> Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way.
Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. There are not many who I would consider to be geniuses in the field.
And something like this [1] is more creative IMO than many of technically demanding works or those blots on a canvas.
I would say that the commercialisation of arts destroyed the appeal of it. It's ok if a work is "just nice" or creates a small feeling and nothing more. The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They're not and this is why art (without all that money) is beautiful. It can be a beautiful place of creativity and egality.
[1]: https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpi...
No, it wouldn't. It would be considered at best derivative. There are tons of hyper-realist artists. Some even do it at street corners for handouts. And copying cliches of previous artists/periods doesn't buy one much (just like writing some derivate polka tunes in 2018 doesn't mean much to music fans).
>What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields.
It's not supposed to be compared to other fields.
And it's not even supposed to be considered "genius" (as in super smart), but "artistic genius" which is something else (e.g. uniquely expressive).
>Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO.
It's the opinion of the art scene and art crowd that decides though, not some individual personal opinions (which could also be totally uniformed or look for things that aren't important artistically).
>The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw.
They just convey that someone is thinking that the painting is a good investment (or be good to launder money) and can be resold. Says nothing about the genius of the painter. Some critically trite images by famous painters are sold for tons of millions as well.
If he's able to create creative sceneries using Photoshop and then proceeds to copy them using his techniques, I think this could lead to recognition of artistic genius.
And I would like to know how artistic genius gets recognized. I think it's still highly subjective and just the aggregated opinion of all people in the art crowd and their subjective opinions - so it's still difficult to say that someone has definitely artistic genius because it's dependent on the crowd, the time, the society etc.
Anyone can become a human copy machine with various simple methods. There's a reason why all of his pictures just look like a photograph with zero creativity. (The same reason why great painters stopped trying to achieve hyper-realism since~ van Gogh and the invention/popularization of the photographic camera...)
Wow, that's what you got out of it? We consider photographers to be great artists when they catch evocative moments in life. There's a skill and an art to it, we don't dismiss is it because of the technical qualities, nor because it provides too much realism.
There's a skill and an art to hyper-realism (which I wouldn't actually call any of this work hyper-realist), and part of it is hitting those same evocative notes, capturing moments that are distinctly human and that we can all connect to in our own ways. Our response to these things is what makes art ... art.
That's because (and when) they catch them and frame them appropriately.
We don't consider any random photographer capturing a ho-hum scene a "great artist".
And these are, technique aside (which is not that great either), pretty mundane framings and poses.
>There's a skill and an art to hyper-realism
Sure, but in this one there's only the skill -- not much of the art. There are hyper-realists that have the art part figured out too.
The dismissive comments here are confusing because it seems there's a rush to say "it's not that impressive." I think at minimum it is technically impressive for someone that age. Prodigy? Perhaps not, but it's noteworthy that he's done this at this level.
Art is of course always going to be a subjective discussion, so I don't see much point in arguing whether this is "good" or not, but I can say that personally I found the moments and poses evocative enough, which is not something I experience with any given piece of art. It's in the eye of the beholder, of course.
But they resonated in the way that unique moments in life get cemented in your subconscious, only to be plucked out by others who feel and experience and finally commit them to some medium to share.
If this is indeed his work I'm impressed given his age.
I'm fine with you or anyone else being impressed with this, but for many others like me this isn't impressive at all. I believe anyone can produce drawings and paintings like these; even much younger kids, once you teach them this very simple grid method.
You say art is a subjective discussion and I agree. What we don't seem to agree on is what art is. Perfectly copying a photo by using a grid certainly isn't art to me. Or course, if he took any of those photos, then yes, we could subjectively discuss if he's a good artist or not, but his realistic drawings have nothing to do with that.
The process should be irrelevant. Creating art is communicating human experience. Consuming art is the reaction and the resonance. How it feels to create and/or to consume defines what it is. If it doesn't resonate with you, fine, that's why I said it's wholly subjective. But when you make comments like this it makes me feel like you're putting up a barrier that would never let you appreciate what's intended to be expressed here.
https://scontent-frt3-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/500067e25f25f208...
https://scontent-frt3-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/f5a832fa32f0fef2...
https://scontent-frt3-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/30551f3410feac03...
https://scontent-frt3-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/ee5c9ffc77f60e92...
Now, look at the work from this 11 year old when he draws a live person.
https://scontent-frt3-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/15e2a787bc8a92a6...
Don't get me wrong, he's talented, and it's clear he has spent a lot of time practicing. The below video shows him sketching a life drawing of a woman, and I think it's better than most could achieve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQeNBCJt8-Y
When I was a kid, I tried to do similar things. I remember recreating photographs with pencil. I did a lot of measurements. For example, my drawing would be 10:1 scale compared to the source. So I'd measure the distance between the pupils, and mark them on the paper. Then I'd measure the source material for the distance from the left and right pupils to the right corner of the mouth, scale the measurements accordingly, and mark a dot for that position. In the end, I would get something similar to his below drawing, where it looked pretty realistic, but a little wonky.
https://scontent-frt3-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/e9bea443e7e0fe8b...
I was probably 13 at the time. Now, I'm a terrible artist. I probably spent hundreds of hours in life drawing classes in my late teens, and I was one of the worst people in my classes. If you give me a pencil and ask me to draw a person from my mind, or a person in front of me, I think I would do as good as the average person or worse. But, if you give me a photograph and time, I can do an accurate job at recreating it. I don't think it's much talent though, in my case it's more patience, and paying attention to small details.
In short, I think he's skilled at copying photographs, and shows a lot of technical promise at his age. That doesn't make him a genius artist though. Who knows though, maybe he'll get to that point.
His genius was coming up with them -- the composition, the choice of colors, the tone, the framing, what he wanted to evoke etc.
The mere technical part of those drawings he could just assign to any first year arts degree student (and tons of auto-didact) to get right as well.
Someone using Picasso-like source material to create Picasso-like images technically would be nothing impressive.
In fact tons of street artists do just that -- copy paintings by Picasso or other masters, or draw something in their style, and nobody is much impressed. They sell their canvases on the street (e.g. in Monmarte) for like $20 or so.
Yes, if he "just" creates Picasso-like work in his own style, and copies it using pencil, I might consider him a genius. But... so far we have only seen he can copy a photograph to pencil, and countless people have that ability. It's the simple step of creating Picasso-like work that we haven't seen from him, and I feel it's a bit more tricky to master.
As it is, there's nothing notable in copying pictures with a simple method than anyone can follow very easily.
That sketch of a live girl shows his real skills and I found it to be much more interesting than his photocopying, even if it looks like a real 11-year-old's drawing. Thanks!
I might also be wrong and we've seen the next art child prodigy, but I doubt it.
Is there a geographical bias in your skepticism? Would you be as skeptical if this kid was from Norway or Sweden or Austria?
Nothing in the parent comment implies a so-called "geographical bias", yet there you are accusing them of being racist.
And whether implied or not, it's a legitimate question to ask. E.g. if the kid was asian would as many have the same suspicion given the same evidence (or lack thereof)?
Yes, I would be. I'm sure many people would still be skeptical.
Or what's more, because somebody can not be racist and still have a racial bias?
This is not necessarily a bad thing, if anything it elevates this boy's achievements even more and puts his talents in the realm of once-in-a-thousand-generations.
These are charcoal-based sketches, and for that style of art a majority of the artistry lies in image choice and finishing detail of the sketch (and a little bit in the presketch, though that's trainable if he's using a reference image.)
I would like to have better evidence that these parts weren't just done by an adult, because without it, this boy is arguably a once-in-generation genius, and that is an extraordinary claim.