Amazing!

unbelievable!

It's called Hyper realism, a genre of painting that resembles a High Resolution, and it is provokes quite awe.

WOW Beautiful !

Composition? Where is it?

Casey,
Bring in the TROLL! troll,troll,troll,troll...

These are amazing. I love the little girl with the clasped hands!

rembrant of pencil LOL

fantastic

some are so well done , they look like B&W pics.

Technically MASTERFUL!!!!

Unfortunately it is _all_ technique and zero substance as copying photographs creates an artistic redundancy. Photo-Copying is a valid learning tool, but the final result is "craft" and certainly NOT "art."

That being said, I applaud the craftsman's technique and quality of hand with graphite. Drawing photographs with such apparent accuracy and with a full range of tone is time consuming and labor intensive. Most artists move past these exercises quite early in their creative lives; The fact that Randy Hann continues to devote so much time to such endeavors shows a devotion to his craft that exceeds that of many of his "artistic" contemporaries.

Mister Hann has obviously found something he is good at and chosen to stick with it. I encourage him to continue doing what he does best and look forward to seeing his work prominently displayed in mall kiosks across the country.

Is this pencil drawing........excellant job!unbelievable

more than beautiful

Heathen Artist,

You are wrong, who are you to judge what is and isn't art?? yes this is art! if this isn't art then would you classify photography as an art? if your logic is followed then nothing is art.

What does it matter that one has stopped time to ensure that he or she can capture the detail within it.

Have you ever heard of Camera Obscura. Many, very prominent, renaissance artists used them.

You can give backhanded compliments, but at the end of the day, art is beauty through ones ability to create. And Randy has created beautiful works of ART!

amazing work

these are really cool

i agree totally with heathen artist, great technique but only technique. rather sad to see those skills reduced to copying photographs...

Undeniably, they are amazing technical performances. And there's no "but" coming after that comment. They are impressive in what they do. Transcription at this high level of detail and accuracy is difficult. I give the artist that, totally. I just look for poetry and interpretation of subject when I look at a painting or drawing, rather than stunning accuracy.

When I think of photography being used as a tool by artists, I think first of top-of-their-field commercial painters and illustrators, like Norman Rockwell or James Avati (although I know that, yes, Thomas Eakins and other fine artists used them way before this). These artists made extensive use of photographs as a starting place for more or less elaborate compositions. They were not bound by the photos. They didn't prop a scene and shoot their whole painting in a single exposure.

First, they had a picture idea, and sketched it up. Then, they took several photo references separately specifically with that picture idea in mind. Finally, they assembled them as an underdrawing into their original composition, using all their imaginative and compostional skills and gifts as artists. When you compare their photo reference to the eventual redrawing and painting (which you can view in sequential comparisons in books out on either artist) you will most likely be struck among other things by how different the source and the interpretation are. (Make no mistake, the interpretations are rigorous and "right on it" in terms of accuracy of observation and knowledge of anatomy displayed.) But the light source may change between source and interpretation, major details of the pose, and the appearance of the individual may morph into something more heavy-set, or more bird-like in the artist's hand, as the idea dictates. But in any event, you will realize the way photos can be used by a creative artist as a starting point, not as a template delivered complete by the camera.

Certainly this is subjective, but as a devotee of a basically "realistic" approach, I will always prefer the approach described above -- using a photo as a starting point which can be departed from freely -- to a hard transcription.

peak of drawin.
excatly first one.

That is an awesome Photoshop Effect!

Some of them are real sketches but I agree with the troll above me for the most part.

Excellent work. I would assume that Chuck Close himself if looking at your work would find some joy in it as well. Kudos. ;)

To "Mister" Heathen Artist... May I have a link to your work? I would love to critique it.

tapatio,
2

awesome!!!

excellent work

Photos progected onto an easel, then penciled...is called TRACING...nice job elevating tracing.

its photoshopped

Good god, the detail is amazing.

The art and creativity here were in the taking of the original photo: choosing the subject, capturing the moment, arranging the light and forms within the frame - this is the art and its result - a photograph.

What we have above is the craftsmanship of the copyist - someone who is skillful with a pencil - but not an artist. I can admire the skill and am sure that from his point of view producing these drawings was probably very therapeutic but from my perspective I really cant see the point.

If any of the above appealled to me, I would be more interested in aquiring the original photo than any of these rather dead and lifeless copies.

Great art work.

there all of kids!

Its wicked easy to do this in Photoshop

If this is photoshopped, then this is lame. However if these are drawn then they ARE art no matter how you obtained the final copy.

art history called they want its portrait style of painting back. sorry man, its a postmodern age, we have photographs for this.

I have seen greatness. You Mr. Hann are great. I know what I like and am not swayed by opinions of negativity. Thank you for the opportunity to see such beauty.

What I wouldn't give to have this guy's talent.

Without soul!
Better check this artist from Latvia:

http://www.artgallery7.eu/inde
x.php?name=coppermine&file=dis
playimage&album=28&pos=2

the flower is by far the worst, everything else...way more difficult but so much more intricate and beautiful, look like real photographs in black and white, some! i love it

Too Good..

Heathen Artist just sounds petty and jealous. What's the difference in using a photograph for reference (assuming that's what the artist did) and using a live model for reference as all portrait artists do?
I had an art professor belittle a photo realistic pencil drawing of a still-life containing a cut glass vase. It was amazing! He said anyone could do it. But I saw his "art" and thought it was all crap, (looked like pastel mattresses patterns), so I don't think he could have done it.
Those who can do, those who can't teach (or criticize).

buy a camera.

This technique is a stylistic straight jacket - artist should spend more time trying different things than laboriously copying photos in this clinical style. 100% for technique - 0% content - where's the warmth, edge, boldness, strength, character, emotion? Its like being sedated with valium.

they look like overexposed versions of stock photographs. children, dogs, playing children, boats, children (getting creepy eh?). if he had applied his skills to some kind of surrealist manifestation of reality than I might consider him an artist. Impressive if he didn't trace or refer to existing photographs, regardless, the depiction of these images is dull. The easily impressed like to claim jealousy, but what, besides "wow look at that , it looks just like a real photograph" (which begs the question, why doesn't he just display some photographs instead of wasting his time?) , do you get out of this? Does it provoke you in any way (I mean, apart from thinking oh look some cute kids and pets). like ablejohn said...without soul

This looks shopped, i know shops ive seen a few good ones in my day and this is up there.

-sincerely Theodore. Roger, Oliver L. Langston (sorry for the long name but its my professional name and my Actual name...just thought you should know both..

umm these are amazing..really. no matter what people say. yes, it may not be exactly art, but this is still brilliant. And it isn't wasting time, there is sooo much talent and potential there. Its rare for anyone to have the capability to draw these realistically, and if it is copying your EXTREMELY good at it :).honestly if i copied an image i would be please with 1/20th of what you have created. And im sure if you created an image using your imagination or by watching these events take place in actual reality rather the still-life, then your work would be more appreciated.not that you aren;t super awesome already. and seriously some people just don't see the beauty of the subject matters in your work.

Seconding Brisket Isbest. SERIOUSLY.

Artists who use/used photos as references DO use them as only a starting point. And I honestly can't think of any artist who takes a single photograph and then transcribes that photo with graphite onto a canvas or paper. In those instances, the creativity, the idea, and the execution happened in the photo--and the artists that I studied under, at least, weren't generally given to the creative redundancy required for Hann's kind of work.

Creating a good photograph isn't traditionally "hard" the way drawing from life is, but we can consider a photo "art" because of the thought that goes into the composition of the final photograph, the development process (or the digital editing), etc. Copying from your own photo is, again, a little redundant, so it isn't really done. Copying *SOMEONE ELSE'S CREATIVE VISION*--that is, taking SOMEONE ELSE'S PHOTOGRAPH (where ALLl the creativity lies) and then drawing it with zero interpretation--is just that. Copying. Not "art."

I think it says a lot that we value quality and appreciate it when a person can create a good copy. But it isn't "art." I have in my personal portfolio a tempera painting I did when I was 15 that looks identical to the source image from National Geographic. I pull it out on occasion, because people are always impressed by something that so clearly demonstrates skill. But I don't consider this piece "art." In fact, I consider it somewhat below the still lives I drew in graphite in terms of artistic value (drawing from life DOES take a LOT more skill than drawing from a photo--in the photo, everything is made 2D for you, and you don't have to think much), and farther still below the portraiture I painted and the illustrations I have finished.

I have no problem when people appreciate the skill and effort that goes into a copy like this. But it isn't "art" if we are to use the full definition of the term. Using a camera obscura, a collection of photographs, or life-references is so far removed from copying something someone else created that it is insulting to compare the two and pronounce them even remotely similar. If I could be assured that this craftsperson were drawing from his own collection of personal photographs, then I could call him an artist. But as it stands, he is just very very skilled.

Nice copies but a photocopier and an artist are completely different things.

These are wicked coooooooooooool!!!!

These are not pencil drawings. check the water reflections no way da vinci coundt have done it. Looks like Photo shp filters to me.

And I know I've done it at work.

S.,
Just because you don't like or feel challenged by it doesn't mean it's not art. saying things like "But it isn't "art" if we are to use the full definition of the term" is ridiculous. art is anything you want it to be.
personally i don't care for this art, portraits of kids freak me out, but i wont sit here and let such pretentious bs slide by.



Art
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.