And why do I get the feeling I'm being marketed to?

Its completely fake. If you overlay his "painting" and the original photo they are 1:1 pixel copies. That's impossible (and pointless), especially on a blunt instrument like and iPad screen, which has a fraction of the touch resolution as something like a Wacom and even that couldn't reproduce a photo 1:1 (and again, WHY?!). This is likely a simple case of start with the photo and paint backwards, all just marketing for that app, damn effective marketing.

I think it would have been much cooler if he stopped at about the 1 minute mark. (that is, assuming he really did it at all).

It depends on how you define art!

Personally, I like photorealism - I feel that technique is underrated in the art world today, and it's nice to see people who've developed theirs to such a degree. This particular piece, however, I'm not so pleased with. Impressed, sure! But it's just Morgan Freeman's face, for fucks sake. Who cares about Morgan Freeman? Let alone Morgan Freeman staring into space, doing nothing? And at the risk of sounding like a flaming snobby douche, it's really not as technically impressive as it *could* be; for example, it doesn't include the complex reflections that now seem to be standard within the photorealistic art community's ever escalating arms race. It's like an Yngwie Malmsteen solo, manifest. Or no, scratch that, it's like a Van Halen solo, manifest. Impressive, beautiful even, but also dull, and it tells us nothing.

That said, I'd love to be able to paint like this! Not so I could belt out endless streams of trite celebrity-worship (checking Bing, that seems to constitute the majority of Kyle Lambert's output), but so that I could do some wicked badass trompe l'oeils and photorealistic paintings of mobile suits battling it out with dragons.

I think photorealism has a great spot in art/illustration when it's depicting something unreal, and it takes a lot of skill to do that. On the flip side, I think impressionist and everything after is great when it enhances the ordinary. Doing a photorealistic painting of a photo just seems pointless to me. Skillful maybe, but not particularly interesting or engaging.

Artistic or not, it sure is dedicated. I couldn't ever imagine that I'd spend 200 hours on a single illustration.

Mostly because the thoughts in my head would go like this:

"Why did I make this so hard?"

"I've got to go in and detail everything now? The hell were you thinking?"

"Ugh, Goddammit. Still not right."

"AAAAGH BE STRAIGHT YOU STUPID LINE!"

"Holy crap this picture rocks!"

"This picture looks like shit."

"I'm tired of looking at this" (spends the next 20 minutes looking at the illustration.

All said and done though, I've got a new Android Tablet and I can't wait to find stylus and a good painting program. Gonna be sweet!

If technique is an end rather than a means to an end it's worthless.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think, OZ? Technique for technique's sake may not be the best use of your time, but I'd hardly say it's "worthless". By the same token, something that's all concept and no technique, like Matisse or Banksy (OH YES I WENT THERE), it may not be the most brilliant piece of art in the world, but it's still got SOME value. Doesn't it?

It takes an awful lot for something to be literally worthless - only things I can think of offhand are Apple commercials and maybe Warhol.

I have to partially agree with OZ on his comment. To me, hyper realism with fantasy has some fun with it, but it dries out. Photorealism/hyperrealism/superrealism are all glamour bits that everyone strives for or is simply intimidated from because it's considered a peak in talent. It's great, but I'd love to see how many of those artists to come out with their own style. To me, it's as if they're working so hard to achieve something that they become shells of anything that's remotely interesting. There's no interest in perspective thought. I sort of wonder how many of those people turn out to be soulless shills who'd fall for conspiracy theory muck and claim that anyone who can't do what they can isn't trying. It's not to say there isn't a point in trying to do what they do, but I feel it's one of those shallow venues where it becomes more "I've accomplished the best thing in my life" with out consideration for being a person.

If I could give anything to it, it'd be like listening to a catchy but terribly written poppy song. It won't be admired for it's over all composition/merit/thoughts, but it's a change of pace from the usual rut.

There's a comic on DA, which I can't remember the name of or what exactly the theme/setup is other than sexually active friends dealing with life as sexually active whatevers, but one of their comics actually used an astoundingly awesome talent with Baroque as a glamour style when some sex scenes came up, or it was an anecdote with sex role play. Either way, it was a nice breath of fresh air, but the usual sketchy drawing style took away from the transition. It was neat, but it felt like homogenized crap. I didn't read the comic, not because it was terrible, (don't really know if it was or wasn't or if it was a low point) but I've become extremely picky with my interests. (Note: can't find it. Thought I favorite it somewhere, but it's gone.)

I say 'no'. It's technically impressive if true, but part of what makes 'art' is some aspect of personal interpretation by the artist. I see no interpretation here, simply a human photocopier.

Was that what was done here? I've done a little bit of research on photorealistic painting before (I like Robert Neffson's landscapes, for example), and from what I understand, similar techniques are employed for attaining photorealism with traditional media - such as using photographic projections to get the proportions and colors exactly right. "Tracing", as you said. It's much, much simpler to do this with digital artwork, particularly if the program you're using allows for layering (does this one? Seems like a cheap-o version of Papyrus at first glance), so I guess you could be right.

Anyone able to confirm the backstory?

Seems plausible.

Here's my take. No, the resulting image wouldn't be art. But maybe the act of turning yourself into a souless image-reproducing machine could be a kind of perfomance art. I know a guy who basically does this and gets called a "great artist". I called bullshit on it and now a lot of people don't talk to me.

I like your chops there, erratic.

that's how I feel when watching those "documentaries" on how the miracles of the bible could have happened. if the miracles can be explained with science, then they're pointless theologically. and since that would make the bible pointless, why would we care about trying to explain it?

So, basically, a lot of people don't understand momentum?