Pencil Drawings By Randy Hann (28 pics)

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.

you've gotta see this!!!!

http://www.myspace.com/oriolan
grill

woooow .....totally amazing drawing , i like this art ,

Beautiful drawings!! I love to see when someone can actually draw.

thats not drawings thats photos who you trying to fool??

wow.
my god.
i have nothing to say...

Using photos as reference material is very common and I see nothing wrong with it. However, this artist has used a projector to project the images onto the paper. Either that or he traced them. They are too rigid to be anything but. Why not learn to draw from your mind? It may not be as perfect, but much more interesting to look at. There is no emotion in these images.

http://www.randyhann.com/Paint
ingsstyles.htm

As people have said, technically, very nice; artistically, awful. Now, realism can be done well, in fact, it creates some of the most beautiful artworks, but this is just lifeless, and nauseating.

one proof that an artist is really good is that he both have good and bad critiques. they just can't ignore you. so don't lose heart with the negative comments. i admire your art.


oh and one more thing, I think this is really a pencil drawing, not a photograph. Saying something is 'photoshopped' is becoming a cliche already. I do these kind of drawings too so I can easily tell, but he's better than me.

but you know what makes a drawing special compared to a photograph? it's the effort, time and the heart you put in it.

This is beautiful work. I looked carefully at all of them after the claims they were photoshoped.
ANY IDIOT, can tell these are pencil drawings, with the possible exception of one or two. looking carefully at the lines, there are defects, but still this is beautiful none the less. Just because most artists dont understand what a pencil is because they think their mouse is a pencil doesn't mean that great works of art aren't done in this medium.

For those of you who say this isnt art or something of that fashion. Art is anything, photos, photoshop, pencil, paints, wood, clay, gears and cogs. Even if someone where to smear a happy face onto a canvas with cat shit, that is still art.

There is a fine line between criticism and down right ass-holeishness. I understand some of you say this sucks because you cant do the same, or you question the authenticity.

Some of you also say that this artist should dip into surrealism. Honestly still life photos are a rarity anymore, (whether he took the picture then hand copied or if he was actually able to get the kids to sit still that long, which is doubtful that is how kids are, so a photo is realistically the easiest way to do a still life of a child) Most of you didnt know this apparently but a really long time ago, hundreds of years, did you know artists where shunned for surrealism paintings? after surrealism took flight a long while later, that is all you find. An artist is not bound to just what he sees as art anymore, but how many artists paint the truth any longer?

Anyway I am done ranting, this artist is good, kid pictures creep me out too though so I cant say I enjoy these, but I can say this is art and damn good. So for those of you that are being assholes, play in traffic, those of you that agree with me, thank you. The only other thing I have to offer to the artist, your better at people then you are landscapes, they are still really close but I would put more work into it. And if you are using photos as your starting point for your drawing, then I would like to see some still life where the subject is present.