I hate to be all jaded about things, but this is the second story I've seen on this boy, and I feel like he falls under the "extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence" umbrella.
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.
>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.
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...
Agreed. Hyper-realism, while impressive to look at, is not really all that difficult to achieve mechanically (relatively, of course).
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
Addresses all my points well, but I feel misunderstood in the first paragraph.
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.
Indeed. This is the easiest kind of "art" (I wouldn't even call it that, as art means something else to me). Just look around any portrait painting on YouTube, there's millions of them with this kid's same results.
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...)
> There's a reason why all of his pictures just look like a photograph with zero creativity
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.
Again, I don't think that this is really hyperrealism anyway and am a bit confused why it's being labeled as such.
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.
If you find the moments and poses evocative enough, that only speaks about the photographer. The kid only photocopied the photos to his canvas/paper.
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.
> Perfectly copying a photo by using a grid certainly isn't art to me.
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.
Agreed. When it comes to hyper-realism, they draw a grid over the source material, and the canvas. It's not tracing, but it's a way of scaling and recreating the proportions of an image very accurately. You can see the grids in the below photos from him, and some others at the same studio.
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.
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.
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.
See my comment above [1]. He could just use other creative photos (that he could also create himself), copy them using his technique and you would consider him a genius (i.e. he can create a Picasso-like image with his own style and simply copies the photo he creates). But I think even then you may not consider it genius because genius in the area of arts is highly subjective and you may not want to give him this status. Because it's so highly subjective, what you consider genius says more about you than about him.
The genius in Picasso wasn't being able to technically draw Picasso-like scenes (anybody can, and besides Picasso could draw perfectly realistically as well whenever he wanted).
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.
> He could just use other creative photos (that he could also create himself), copy them using his technique and you would consider him a genius (i.e. he can create a Picasso-like image with his own style and simply copies the photo he creates).
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.
If he could create those other creative photos, then yes, I'd say he is a genius. The process of creating these creative photos would be remarkable, not the copying to a canvas or a bigger paper.
As it is, there's nothing notable in copying pictures with a simple method than anyone can follow very easily.
Thanks for finding those pictures! Hopefully it's now easier to see for those who don't care too much about art why hyper-realism is so much easier to achieve than, for example, any of the portraits here: http://plbrown.blogspot.com/2017/01/yes-its-real-thing-museu...
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!
Hmm.. The video doesn't seems to show him in process. Stephen Wiltshire has several time-lapses and videos of him in various stages of the drawing process. Maybe we'll get a reporter that records a time lapse at some point, or maybe not if it's really the work of an adult.
Take this with a grain of salt. But I have a friend that is a very bright artist since she was a child. Not this level of skill, but really really close with the chalks. I say that it is 'possible' but unlikely.
I know it's not always Occam's razor, but in this case I tend to be the party pooper. This was probably drawn by an adult and now they try to make it a story. There are amazing young artists out there, but this kind of detail, the boy either learned how to draw one or two specific pictures again and again or somebody has helped with this.
I might also be wrong and we've seen the next art child prodigy, but I doubt it.
"Implies" means it doesn't have to be spelt out -- it can linger below the surface.
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)?
Look at everyone in these replies pretending to be race blind. If this kid was Asian, you'd just go "eh, Asian prodigies" and not give it any further attention.
I have the same feeling here. Although I think it's true that scrutiny is advised in all cases, I don't think I've seen such a critical comment section before.
> Prodigies exist in every field
As proof you mentioned Mozart who two centuries ago in Europe. I am skeptical on a geographical and time level based on your evidence
There's nothing wrong with having a geographic bias in skepticism, Nigeria is not a historical source of innovation.
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.
Comments seen here are the worst knee jerk reactions. Massive skepticism without doing any research whatsoever. You can easily go to google and find out he was with Macron. Why would a French President seek to be part of a ploy to deceive anyone about a young artist drawing him live would be beyond belief.
Second is the reactions downplaying what he can do. Seriously, it doesn't matter what you think another person could do. "Have any kid at age 6 and they could achieve this." It is hard enough to get motivation from failing many times to do something. How many of your personal or even business projects have panned out?
And some of you wonder why another commenter pointed out geographic bias as the source of the negativity? Whatever your negativity, it is disgusting.
Yes and I threw skepticism on your and other's skepticism. This is what the comments section is on HN for no? Generally a comment without research is ignorant. You would expect this kind of skepticism if you cannot find anything, but here we are.
I bet the comments would have be less sceptical if it was about an 11 year old Nigerian cyber fraudster.
Sorry lads, positive stuff comes out from my country from time to time. Just don't get too upset when it makes Hackernews.
Personally, I'd like to see comments on how such a young and extraordinary talent from a very humble background (even by Nigerian standards) can develop to become a much more rounded artist.
I'm not interested in prejudiced minds questioning the legitimacy of my young and talented compatriot.
I feel that a disproportionate attention goes towards the chronological age of young achievers. Suppose he's had 3 years of intensive practice. I'd like to live in a world where a 50 year old, who has spent 3 years practising, get the same amount of praise.
IMO, this whole 'Look at what this 15 year old can do!' needs to change to 'Look at what 4 years of practice can get you'.
I think you talk out of pure envy, which is understandable, but people are generally interested in prodigies and nature's wonders, it's just the way things are. What matters is that the kid brings a lot of hope and joy to people.
Funny that you link an article whose title is "OAP, 84, paints magnificent masterpiece - but has never had an art lesson in his life" but inside the article, we have "... Former toolmaker Ken Small worked seven hours a day for three years to produce the extraordinary reproduction of Canaletto's famous work."
My argument is that 'working 7 hours a day for 3 years' should have been the title of the article, not the effortless perfection suggested by "...but has never had an art lesson in his life".
> What matters is that the kid brings a lot of hope and joy to people.
I disagree. The article brings clicks. If we're to bring hope, let the focus on things that people can work with. You can't become 11 years old. But if you learn how the kid practised, challenges he faced, etc, you have something to build on if wish to get to his expertise level some day.
If that sounds like pure envy, then I'm happy to be the villain of this story.
You misunderstand my point. I'm arguing against his age being used as a wow factor. IMO, such articles make older artists, who have managed to put in the same amount of effort, seem less gifted.
Art should be appreciated for what it is. Shouldn't matter if the artist is 11 or 40.
On a related note, I'm a bit annoyed by the attention people pay to rather boring realistic art. I'm actually conflicted about it, because on the other hand, a teenager investing his time and effert into a skill like this is awesome, and I do hope that he pursuits art later in life. But the pictures themselves...
To the untrained eye, this looks much more challenging than something more abstract. I am untrained myself, and I'd appreciate an explanation of why this isn't technically interesting. It's not like every art school grad can do this.
It appears Kareem Waris Olamilekan is working freehand. Very impressive. Drawing (drafting) with charcoal is challenging. Even when you're "just" copying.
The mind reels at what this young artist would do with better tools, materials, mentorship.
Even the master's had their tricks to achieve realism.
> To the untrained eye, this looks much more challenging than something more abstract.
Judging art by the challenge to the artist's skill to create it is exactly the 19nth century thinking that I'm talking about. We already have cameras and photoshop and 3d modelling software - if something can be created by a tool, I don't see any value in creating it by hand, except for the skill training in itself.
That's to be expected. We're amazed by the realism of the pictures of pre-photography times, although nowadays anyone can achieve even better results with some simple copy methods and a photo.
Kind of sad to see in every art subreddit just "human-photocopied" pictures being upvoted (extra points if you digitally color-picked all shades of color from the photography, besides the usual tracing of every line) instead of real, creative art...
You can achieve similarly striking paintings by projecting a very cool photograph into paper and then painting it over the projection. I remember as a kid when my father brought a projector for the weekend, and my sister and me spend the time copying photographs this way. It helps to project the image upside down, so you can focus better in the colors than in the 3d structures.
Before electronic (or even electric) projectors were around, professional artists were using device called a camera obscura[1] with similar results (though obviously dependent on natural illumination).
There is much debate over whether great painters such as Vermeer used a camera obscura as early as the 17th century.
Given enough time, any person can create a wonderful work of art -- or even software. I learned this while working for a college art department and seeing the faculty evaluate portfolios for scholarships. Looking at a beautiful pencil sketch, they would point out telltale strokes that revealed the time spent on the piece but not mastered skill. That's OK, it was a beautiful accomplishment, and the college could give them the skills.
I think of this when I dream of software projects that I want to accomplish. If I just start now, and steadily work toward the goal, learning as I go, eventually it will come to be.
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.