Thom Yorke time lapse photoshop drawing
March 4, 2007 3:27 AM   Subscribe

 
Awesome. Thanks for the post!
posted by tickingclock at 3:58 AM on March 4, 2007


I'm for it.
posted by Tullius at 4:16 AM on March 4, 2007


nice!
posted by ClanvidHorse at 4:26 AM on March 4, 2007


There were a lot of annoying problems with the drawing but the guy fixed them in the last minute, hats off. He would get better results working on a solid drawing, rather than trying to still fix fundamental elements like the positioning the head and the profile of the nose right at the end after the hair and all the rest is worked on.
posted by fire&wings at 4:28 AM on March 4, 2007


Yeah, I thought some of his earlier drafting was superior to the later refinements -- like he over-fussed -- but then, I'm not gonna argue with the final result. And that sort of fussing is only natural. Would like to know he did that beard stubble though.
posted by RavinDave at 4:32 AM on March 4, 2007


'It took me like three hours to finish the shading on your upper lip'
posted by pieoverdone at 4:40 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


/me just realised why people won't switch from Photoshop to the Gimp yet. Those tools really are quite impressive.
posted by jaduncan at 4:48 AM on March 4, 2007


Wow.
posted by sveskemus at 5:14 AM on March 4, 2007


jaduncan, it's not the tools that are impressive, it's the person using them.

It instantly reminded me of this.
posted by ReiToei at 5:16 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wow, really impressive painting.
posted by anni at 5:29 AM on March 4, 2007


Very cool, but the artist forgot his glasses.
posted by inconsequentialist at 5:32 AM on March 4, 2007


Might as well scan the photograph he was working from and trace it, at least to get the proportions correct so he can avoid having to redo the nose ad infinitum. Maybe that's cheating.
posted by snoktruix at 5:33 AM on March 4, 2007


Also saved as a Photoshop Action, so now we can all sketch Thom.
posted by itchylick at 5:37 AM on March 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


what's wrong with pencils?

and, it so doesn't look like Yorke it isn't even funny
posted by matteo at 6:19 AM on March 4, 2007


although its a bit different, I really liked this one also.
posted by Afreemind2007 at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2007


what's wrong with pencils?
I was thinking that, myself. Photoshop is so not the place to be doing natural media drawing (like pencils)
I suppose it's a nice bit of "look what I can do with Photoshop". But I'd be much more impressed if he were using actual pencils.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:37 AM on March 4, 2007


matteo: "what's wrong with pencils?

and, it so doesn't look like Yorke it isn't even funny
"

Heh, heh.
posted by Drexen at 6:38 AM on March 4, 2007


It's a nice result, but that's a seriously arse about face way of painting.

Also, if you're going a timelapse like that, would it really be that difficult to chose frames that don't have menus in then for fractions of a second?
posted by twine42 at 6:48 AM on March 4, 2007


what's wrong with pencils?

If he'd done this on paper he would have already scrubbed through the paper, his desk, and probably his floor correcting all the mistakes with an eraser.
posted by fire&wings at 6:49 AM on March 4, 2007


I wonder if Picasso ever signed a painting and then decided to make his subject's neck longer.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 7:01 AM on March 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


HE MISSED THE LEFT EYEBROW COMPLETELY WTF
posted by disclaimer at 7:15 AM on March 4, 2007


I thought it looked like Bruce Willis at one point. It looked like Thom (40% of those letters are unnessicary! - as I read somewhere else) earlier but then the refinements seemed to take over.

Good rendering though. Wonder if he used a tablet.
posted by Brainy at 7:28 AM on March 4, 2007


I saw this on youtube last night. Pretty impressive (except the shirt was way off)
posted by delmoi at 7:33 AM on March 4, 2007


I like how they forget to include Thom's freakish sideways worm neck, then added it at the last minute.
posted by cillit bang at 7:36 AM on March 4, 2007


what's wrong with pencils?

Nothing. What's wrong with Photoshop?
posted by juiceCake at 7:36 AM on March 4, 2007


But I'd be much more impressed if he were using actual pencils.

I'll care if you're impressed or not when you produce similar results.

It's a nice result, but that's a seriously arse about face way of painting.

That's the way a lot of painting is done these days. And I don't even get this, isn't it the result that matters?

--

That said, I will critique anyway, just because I'm a hypocrite. I wish he was doing more interesting subject matter. Photos of celebrities? Who cares? I'd rather he paint something I haven't seen elsewhere. Replicating photographs is not that interesting to me.
posted by delmoi at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2007


what's wrong with pencils?

You can't move whole eyes or add neck length easily if you use pencil. So if you're learning and don't have the fundamental skills, Photoshop will let you produce a much better end product.

Of course, there's something to be said for not producing a good end product and learning from your mistakes. The problem with crutches like Photoshop is that you have no real incentive to learn to do things the right way when you can fix everything afterwards. See also: photography.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:48 AM on March 4, 2007


It was really fun to watch someone with that much skill work, but I have to agree that the end result is a weird looking guy who resembles Thom Yorke. The artist did a great job on the clothes!

While we're on the subject of time-lapse art: The Mystery of Picasso.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 7:53 AM on March 4, 2007


There are better things to talk about.
Be constructive.
posted by hal9k at 8:12 AM on March 4, 2007


There are better things to talk about.
Be constructive.


You best be preparin' yourself for the smackdownz.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:21 AM on March 4, 2007


That's nothing. Doing something impressive with a tool with features is one thing. Doing something impressive with a tool with almost no features is better. Like drawing a PSP in MS Paint.
posted by Plutor at 8:36 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


That's the way a lot of painting is done these days. And I don't even get this, isn't it the result that matters?

The result is poor because of the way it was done.
posted by fire&wings at 8:39 AM on March 4, 2007


I was surprised and thought it interesting that the artist started out in black and white, and only added color at the very end. I could have used a little more lapse in the time-lapse, though. Still, very impressive.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:48 AM on March 4, 2007


Would a pen/table have been used to create this?
posted by aerotive at 8:51 AM on March 4, 2007


Tablet, that is.
posted by aerotive at 8:51 AM on March 4, 2007


Me: It's a nice result, but that's a seriously arse about face way of painting.

delmoi : That's the way a lot of painting is done these days. And I don't even get this, isn't it the result that matters?

Is it really? Is 'painting' done in Photoshop or PSP really done by drawing it all on one layer and then having to hack it around later? For gods sake, just sticking the hair on a different layer would have made the job a lot easier...
posted by twine42 at 9:05 AM on March 4, 2007


That was fun to watch. But it was spoiled by that god-awful music of the soundtrack. Eeuuugh.
posted by Rhomboid at 9:21 AM on March 4, 2007


Would a pen/table have been used to create this?
Absolutely.
Most likely he was tracing from a photo (or collage) on the tablet as well.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:23 AM on March 4, 2007


Videohead?
posted by Optamystic at 9:33 AM on March 4, 2007


fire&wings: The result is poor because of the way it was done.

Wrong. Tools don't dictate the quality of a finished work; someone with a charred stick could produce something fifty times better than this if they had sufficient talent.
posted by Saellys at 9:43 AM on March 4, 2007


The problem with crutches like Photoshop is that you have no real incentive to learn to do things the right way when you can fix everything afterwards.

Just for the sake of argument, what makes it the right way? I mean, when you can fix everything afterwards who cares if you got it right the first time? I suppose it's potentially faster in the long run because your thousandth portrait will come out right the first time, but with photoshop your hundredth portrait is probably marketable, and you're subsidising your training with saleable work.

Is this a process orientation v. results orientation question?
posted by Richard Daly at 9:50 AM on March 4, 2007


SEE ALSO: Digital music recording
posted by ludwig_van at 10:24 AM on March 4, 2007


There are better things to talk about.
Be constructive.


There are weapons we can use.
Be constructive with your blues.

Very cool, but the artist forgot his glasses.

Not the photograph he or she was working from. I could probably did up the original and link it here, but I'm too much of a RH dork as it is.
posted by jokeefe at 10:42 AM on March 4, 2007


The problem with crutches like Photoshop is that you have no real incentive to learn to do things the right way when you can fix everything afterwards.

The proper method for making art is whatever works. Any other perspective is pretty much anachronistic pedantry with not a little hint of sour grapes.

Or should we all still be corresponding in long hand on parchment with quill pens? (not that that wouldn't be cool...)
posted by stenseng at 11:24 AM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Nice job of capturing the self-pity but failed to emphasize the high pitched whining.
posted by acetonic at 11:26 AM on March 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


Just for the sake of argument, what makes it the right way?

That's a big, huge can of worms.

There's the Zen school of thought that suggests it's the mastery of the methods that is most important, the results only secondary. This tends to be the school of thought people take when they're practitioners of the art themselves. There's a pragmatic angle to this—as you point out, the better you are at the technical execution, the more efficient your output. The negative side of this is when the technique is held paramount to the results, and you wind up with the MS Paint gurus linked above, or Elvis on velvet. All method, no matter.

Then there's the flip side: the Utilitarian argument that the results are all that matter, that the technique is merely a means to an end. After all, does anyone care how Michaelangelo carved Pieta? But this overlooks the fact that part of the artistry is in the execution, not just the product of the execution. Which is why people do care that Michaelangelo nearly went blind painting the Sistine Chapel.

In the end, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:27 AM on March 4, 2007 [3 favorites]


Or should we all still be corresponding in long hand on parchment with quill pens? (not that that wouldn't be cool...)

Exactly.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:32 AM on March 4, 2007


Am I the only one who noticed that the storm trooper in the upper left corner was grinding in time to Karma Police?
posted by JaredSeth at 11:37 AM on March 4, 2007


This is a good artist. But I'd recommend in the future to get proportions right before entering into rendering. My god, the EYE got moved and it spoiled the structure of the area surrounding it . . . permanently.

As far as the Photoshop vs. painting thing, a P.S. painting doesn't really exist in 3D space, while a painting does. You can print your Photoshop painting if you're hell-bent on getting the color right, but your time would be better spent with paintbrushes if you really want an objet d'art.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:52 AM on March 4, 2007


That was cool. It's fascinating watching a process of something being created, coming to life, whatever it is [YouTube video of an amaryllis blossoming timelapse, music NSFW].
posted by nickyskye at 11:53 AM on March 4, 2007


Pretty neat, but what's wrong with berry juice on a cave wall?

I wonder how long it took.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:11 PM on March 4, 2007


I thought this one was more realistic.
posted by ryanissuper at 12:22 PM on March 4, 2007


I paint in photoshop all the time so I in no way have a problem with the tool.

However, his process is ass backwards and quite infuriating to watch. He fails to establish a solid structure early. He divorces color from value by dealing with them in separate steps. He noodles details in to the eye before the hair and body have even been touched. He lays down marks of low opacity with weak halting movements resulting in an texture that has more too do with the finger smudged pencil drawings of high school students than with quality digital painting.

Painting in photoshop can have the same impact, the same quality and the same level off expressive communication that anything made with paint can have, but this is not that.
posted by subtle_squid at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Must an author use a pencil and paper instead of a typewriter or even a word processor? You don't fault a chef for using a food processor or a mandolin instead of a knife when he prepares your food, or an oven instead of an open fire. You don't insist that a carpenter must use a hammer instead of a nail gun when building your house? Do you choose a car that was manufactured by humans over one that is assembled with robotics?

While it's true that it's probably mislabeling this as a "painting," it is as valid an illustration as any other. As for technigue, if photoshop gives the artist shortcuts or crutches (like, for example, a spell check function compared to having to fetch the OED every time you write a message here), then how is it any less valid? All that matters are the results in the end.
posted by Dave Faris at 2:54 PM on March 4, 2007


Painting in photoshop can have the same impact, the same quality and the same level off [sic.] expressive communication that anything made with paint can have

RRRtt! It cannot. Why? Because it is viewed on a computer screen. A painting is real and can have texture which can be viewed in real time, biocularly. A Photoshop painting is virtual and always always flat.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 4:42 PM on March 4, 2007


Your favorite way of creating art sucks.

I enjoyed watching it, myself.
posted by maxwelton at 5:01 PM on March 4, 2007


That was interesting, thanks. The artist was obviously working from a photograph, but it's doubtful he/or she was tracing directly over it either on a tablet or on top of a scanned version, otherwise the first structural drawing would have been correct and the piece would have needed far fewer corrections. I used to paint in real media and then due to space limitations (no studio!) and the cost of paint I painted digitally with a wacom tablet using fractal painter and photoshop for a number of years.
To all the naysayers, painting using a tablet is, indeed, still painting. All of the same skills are brought to bear to the process regardless of the medium. Unless a piece of artwork is the result of direct tracing, the skills required are very similar for both new and traditional media.
Colorizing a greyscale painting is actually one of many traditional methods painters have employed throughout history. This was known as glazing, accomplished in oil by building up washes of pigment over a monochromatic underpainting in slow stages once each layer dried.
The fact this illustrator employs a similar technique doesn't mean he/she is cheating (although it's not a technique I'm a huge fan of, and I'm doubly not a fan of working straight from photos).
Having returned to oil painting over the last year, the only crutch I miss is the "undo" command. It's taken a long time for me to realize that control/z is no longer an option. Other than that, each type of media and materials come with their own set of limitations and frustrations. Oh- and I completely agree with gorgor_balabala that digitally constructed artworks do lack depth simply by the nature of what they are and how they are viewed. They are bereft of "objectness" and therefore lack the much of presence and depth that other art objects have- but this is no fault of their author(s).
posted by stagewhisper at 6:46 PM on March 4, 2007


I want a tablet, but I'd probably never graduate beyond Exploding Dog ripoffs. It'd be fun tho =)
posted by ZachsMind at 7:27 PM on March 4, 2007


You don't fault a chef for using a food processor or a mandolin instead of a knife when he prepares your food, or an oven instead of an open fire.

You're looking at it the wrong way. No, you wouldn't fault someone for using an imperfect technique. But you would laud someone with incredible technique. You show me a chef that can create a pastry masterpiece using a mandolin, and I'll show you a cooking superstar.

You don't insist that a carpenter must use a hammer instead of a nail gun when building your house? Do you choose a car that was manufactured by humans over one that is assembled with robotics?

Of course people do. They do it all the time. That's why rich people will spend an order of magnitude more for a product that's handmade over one that's mass-produced (see also: Rolls Royce, bespoke suits, etc.)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:30 PM on March 4, 2007


By the way, while the Wacom tablets are cool, don't forget that the company is owned by the Moonies.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:32 PM on March 4, 2007


I dunno. I like this person's PS rendition of Thom , obviously from the very same photograph, much better.
posted by Windigo at 8:48 PM on March 4, 2007


While it's true that there is a cachet for items made by more traditional, hand-made and old-fashioned methods, because they exist doesn't necessarily invalidate the items made using other, more modern methods.

I was recently perusing a Pottery Barn catalog, and it struck me that there's a definite retro revolution going on, by the looks of it. Everything in the catalog seemed to hearken back to earlier styles -- edwardian, maybe. Nearly everything was (to my mind) way, way overpriced, too. I wonder if Neal Stephenson was correct when he predicted a Neo-Victoriana phase, where people eschew modern contrivances in favor of way old-fashioned methods, much like the "arts and crafts" movement of 100 years ago.

As for this guy's photoshop painting ... I'm willing to forgive any faults that are fixed using the specialized tools of Photoshop because the end result is pretty damn good. A far sight better than I could possibly produce, in any case, so I'm in no position to judge.
posted by Dave Faris at 12:01 AM on March 5, 2007


gorgor_balabala, I fail to see how a flat screen is inherently a bad thing. Painting is communication not object. Rough is a different texture than smooth, not a better one. Personally I love viewing digital painting on a screen. Paint doesn't give off light of its own.

stagewhisper, glazing is a significantly less worthwhile technique in a digital form than in in actual paint. With paint one is able to build up physical layers of translucency that fill, jewel like, with light. This doesn't happen on a screen so In my mind the extra time it takes is mostly wasted.
posted by subtle_squid at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2007


Nice, Windigo - that one is a much better rendering.

subtle squid: I fail to see how a flat screen is inherently a bad thing. Painting is communication not object. Rough is a different texture than smooth, not a better one. Personally I love viewing digital painting on a screen. Paint doesn't give off light of its own.

I guess I'm just delving into semantics here, but surely a physical painting is both a communication and an object; as well as the qualities of the picture, you have the actual artefact that was personally crafted by the artist. On the other hand, you can argue that in these times, even an experience like viewing/touching a painting is so mediated that it doesn't make a difference - or, as you say, that you just prefer an on-screen display. Or again, that a digital file is just as much of an "object", and one with qualities (infinite copyability, adjustability..) that make it a better type of object than a slowly-decaying, "mortal" painting.

But I think we can all agree that time lapse painting, in whichever medium, is hella nifty.
posted by Drexen at 7:46 AM on March 5, 2007


gorgor_balabala: "RRRtt! It cannot. Why? Because it is viewed on a computer screen. A painting is real and can have texture which can be viewed in real time, biocularly. A Photoshop painting is virtual and always always flat."

So what? I don't get to touch the paintings at MoMA when I go there. Are you saying that prints of beautiful paintings are worthless? Or better yet, that watercolor paintings have no value, or somehow have less artistic merit than oil paintings? Or that sculptures and decoupage, because they almost always have more shape than even oil paintings, are the most Art of all?

Also, thanks for adding that [sic] to the quote. I would have totally ignored that typo altogether if you hadn't pointed it out to me. Or maybe I would have assumed you introduced it yourself.
posted by Plutor at 8:33 AM on March 5, 2007


If that artist can get the time down from seven to about five minutes, there's a spot waiting for them on the boardwalk at Coney Island.
posted by breezeway at 8:45 AM on March 5, 2007


Plutor I have to side closer to gorgor_balabala on this. Certainly you aren't arguing that a print of a beautiful painting and a beautiful painting itself have the same visual impact and physical presence? Even the most photo-realistic, thinly painted piece of artwork has a shifting, physical bearing - one can walk around it, subtle shifts in surface texture are evident. Despite the history of artists trying to remove the "hand" and/or elevate the resulting image from the materials and processes used to create it, non-digital media will always be wedded to its surface- a surface that degrades and shifts over time as pigments fade and sizing yellows. The screen is a distancing barrier, and digital media is always virtual and ephemeral in its natural habitat, cocooned behind that glass. I am in no way inferring that digital art is not art, but I'm trying to articulate why I've yet to view a digitally created art object that provokes as strong a response in me as even the most basically competent painting despite the fact that I make my living these days creating digital design and graphics.
posted by stagewhisper at 11:10 AM on March 5, 2007


I'm certainly not arguing that prints are worth the same as originals. There isn't a printing process in the world that can capture the visual quality of an oil painting.

I would argue that digital painting as a medium is just as valid as oil painting as a medium is just as valid as printmaking as a medium. And it is always better to view work in the original. If digital is the original than the screen is the ideal place to view it.
posted by subtle_squid at 11:45 AM on March 5, 2007


Plutor (and / or s.s.), thank you for the bait. Your bizarre argument about flatness had nothing to do with my comment, which was to make clear the distinction in 'impact' / 'quality of expression' between the two mediums.

I made no statement about artistic value but now I will: Where it lies is in the realness. If you refuse to distinguish between the two, I am not going to help.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 3:39 PM on March 5, 2007


gorgor_balabala: "A painting is real and can have texture which can be viewed in real time, biocularly. A Photoshop painting is virtual and always always flat."

gorgor_balabala: "Your bizarre argument about flatness had nothing to do with my comment, which was to make clear the distinction in 'impact' / 'quality of expression' between the two mediums."

Hunh. Even on a second read, I still don't see that. Guess I'm just thick.
posted by Plutor at 3:43 PM on March 5, 2007


That's OK.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 3:54 PM on March 5, 2007


Man, you really showed him.
posted by ludwig_van at 4:33 PM on March 5, 2007


As far as i know, prosthetic eyes do not work. But I'm no surgeon.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 4:42 PM on March 5, 2007


Now that the discussion is over, why don't we observe someone with real talent.
posted by Count at 7:27 PM on March 5, 2007


Ok, Count...that was funny.
posted by dejah420 at 8:38 PM on March 5, 2007


« Older Catering to a Lebanese cliché   |   Shameful day for the Cherokee Nation? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments