174 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

wow, dont tell me that this - <a class="user" href="http://duggmirror.com/design/The_World_s_Most_Photorealistic_Vector_Art/0cccc13e9ca641017e2b22151e229707_Zghira.jpg&quot;&gt;http://duggmirror.com/design/The_World_s_Most_Photorealistic_Vector_Art/0cccc13e9ca641017e2b22151e229707_Zghira.jpg&lt;/a&gt; - is not real photo ... it is so realistic...ok, it is a little bit pointless to do this, but it's good to know that this IS possible

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

the one I mentioned in the link above. <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/15,000_layer_Photoshop_file.&quot;&gt;http://digg.com/tech_news/15,000_layer_Photoshop_file.&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@PowercowBirge isn't saying that Illustrator doesn't make vector art, but is saying that just because this art is made using Illustrator, it is not really vector art.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I think these are astounding. But again this is not art. It is a great technical skill, but not art. They only reflect what they originally started with and a few subtle changes. Do those subtle changes give them credence to call them art? Debatable.I despise Illustrator and most vector based programs. Have used Illustrator since version 5 and have always found it counter intuitive and frustrating to create illustrations (only use it for logos and print work). So I'll give these credit for skill and the fact that vector's clarity and scalability have their advantages. /give me a pen and paper//& thank god for photoshop!

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

No digg, becausde vector art like this is unimpressive. Art is the selective recreation of life for aesthetic purposes to me. Wow you made something that looks exactly liek the photograph with a program that does a lot of the work for you! Bravo, I must say that's truly something to behold! *sigh*Recreating life with oil paint is so muc hdifferent than doing so with vectors.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@SwamiGHow the hell does copying it matter? If I sent you a 200 mega-pixel photograph (this is likely not possibly, because they won't let you) of Mono Lisa, are you gonna tell me it's not art because it is presented in a photograph? So in effect you're claiming two identical paintings can evoke different emotions...wow, that's mind blowing, do you have a carbon dating/fact checking nanomachine attached to your retinal sensors? Mr. Terminator+Curator 2.0, I believe it is the impression the said "art" gives you, not which patron employed which artist to paint whatever.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I think both of your arguments were forcing the issue (either way) by saying taste per se is subjective or objective. I think even if we all physically get the same electric impulses into our brains and get the exact same data as everyone else our preferences would still be different. But really, this borders on the nature Vs. nurture issue, which has yet to be resolved decisively. I think because of our experiences (you can tell which side I'm on) we will like or dislike things because of it. We may both taste the same bitterness in a lemon peel, I may like it and you may dislike it. We all see that the featured images were painstakingly made, I may think it's a complete waste of time and therefore stupid, you may think that the techniques used were esoteric and the time spent astounding and therefore praise it to be art. I think this sums it up best:You say tomato (TOE-MAY-TOE), I say tomato (TUH-MAH-TOE)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Bury...

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Awesome post! ... More from the technological standpoint than artistic though.. I'm with some of the above comments, art is about much more than perfected vector skills... That being said, vectors sure do make some sleek graphics... :)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Was just submitting this but you already had. Has to be one of the coolest things I've seen. These people do some amazing Illustrator work...

• Reply