this is not art.
this is a guy who has a developed technique.
these are the kind of drawings you would see on the street by people trying to get you to have your charicature done.
these could be drawn by a machine

Hooch: Please don’t come back to The Chive until you can appreciate good art.

Breath takingly beautiful.

[...] Great Drawings I just thought I would share this. Krzysztof Lukasiewicz aka Krzysztof20d amazing celebrity drawings | TheChive Beautiful. [...]

this is talent

hooch your an idiot and are just jealous you can’t draw that well, so stop hatin, loser!

the work that a person can do with a pencil is amazing. I can barely draw a square

im am 15 and these drawing are remarkable,i would love to take lessons from this noh and hooch is a hater!dont listen to him(or her)just eep doin what God has blessed you to do!

MAKE THIS PERSON ARTIST OF THE MONTH!

Hooch: it’s impossible to say that ANYTHING “is not art”. Is it PROVOCATIVE art, no, but it’s still art. The peices don’t striek me as peices that are suppose to provoke or awaken a thought of something; they’re portraits and that’s it. If someone enjoys them for what they are then that makes it art,

[...] Hittade bilderna här… Dela med dig eller tipsa: [...]

I agree with hooch.

This guy is TALENTED, but this ISN’T ART. This guy is copying PHOTOS of celebrities -there’s nothing original, unique, or creative about the work. When I was in high school I could also copy photos and make them look ‘super-real’. I’d like to see what this guy can draw purely from his imagination without staring at photos of celebrities all day.

art = an articulation of _meaning_, a manifestation of one’s perception of their surroundings and/or the reactionary materialization of this perception.
none of these technical drawings possess the symptoms of “art”, they’re only a duplication of other images, just like photographs. Sandra, calling something Art suggests that the item itself by default has some kind of provocative value. The idea of “art” that you speak of was outdated when the camera was invented.

Ahh agree with Hooch.. The guy does have talent in drawing.. If it is true that he drew those portraits by hand.. Again i agree with hooch, you can even do those using computer.. But i believe Natalie Portman look stunning!

Hooch and the TheLogicalConclusion are right. these are no different than photographs. They don’t say anything. This is about as artful as a picture in Star Magazine.

So does that mean that the Mona Lisa isnt art? That any landscape ever put on canvas by Monet isnt art? Just because its copying or using something as a reference doesnt mean its not art. Besides what would you call the person drawing these fantastic portraits? An ARTist, right? Art covers such a broad scope of styles, mediums, etc..really anything can be art if its intended to be. And these are great works of art, period.

I consider myself a well rounded artist (2-D & 3-D). I do very good “realist” portraiture, but not quite as good as Krzysztof’s work shows above. BUT I do know what it takes to get the results he got…
- “Critical View”…As a viewer, 2-D Realistic art is immediately impressive on the level of “skill”. HOWEVER when dealing with ‘originality’, Realistic art does not offer much more viewer-fulfillment or meaning beyond its life-like rendering. “Surreal” art takes Realist art past that point.
- “Objective View”…2-D Realist art requires time, skill, and pain-staking attention to detail. It calls upon the artist’s ability to accurately bring reality onto canvas, paper, etc. Try viewing some videos of world famous Realists in action to get a sense of why this truly is an artform…take these qualities even further for “3-D Realists” or “Realists Sculpturs”.
- “BOTTOM LINE”…THIS IS ART, but does not require so much imagination as it does skill.

“So does that mean that the Mona Lisa isnt art? That any landscape ever put on canvas by Monet isnt art?”

Da Vinci and Monet didn’t just copy what they saw, they created new things and had unique ways of expressing them beyond simple lines and shadows. Whomever made these can certainly draw, but so can my printer.

The work shown above is “realism” (and is not traced by the way). It’s all skill and technique, but does not take much creativity – you see the lamp, now put it on the canvas…it’s that simple (in concept).
HOWEVER, I can assure you “realism” is a lot harder to MASTER than “abstract” or “impressionistic” art.
Although Krzysztof may not be creative enough to come up with ‘Starry Night’, Krzysztof would have a much easier time emulating Van Gogh’s Starry Night, than Van Gogh emulating Krzysztof’s work above – I’d bet bottom dollar ;D

EVERYONE’S DRINKIN HATER-AID TOWARD THE TOP OF THIS BLOG THREAD!
Give Krzysztof and his artwork more credit – at least for his technique.

If realism is your fancy, try Japanese hyper-realist artist “Hajime Sorayama”.
It’s low on story telling, but heavy on techinique, skill, execution and twistedly erotic.
What to appreciate:
1) He has the skill to render most any type of surface (skin, cloth, lace, wood, anything wet, and CHROME – HAJIME SORAYAMA IS A MASTER OF CHROME, and that ain’t the easiest surface to make look perfect!!!)
2) He’s got speed to go with his technique (his career has yielded near endless array paintings and portfolio books).

Hooch is a moron because what else is an artist than a person who develops technique? Why do you think that art is taught in high school, in college. Why do you think art school exists? To develop technique.

This is amazing art…i wish he could draw me

photoshop ether is art or not stil sinthetic is not real drawn by hand

this is not art . i dont even consider them drawing this are pictures i happens to see some of them this guy just used some technique to make them look like drawing.
good job Though

wow wow wow this is amazing talent