Artist Transforms Pokemon Into "Realistic" Monsters - Update

[hickwarrior]

Well, I can say that some that these pokes couild easily show up in monster hunter. Very well done.

But something keeps niggling me though...

 

[RoonMian]

Had it looked like this 15 years ago I would've played it, too... This way the whole thing went past me because I got hung up on the kid friendly look as a teenager... They all looked like subway tunnel rats to me...

 

[the December King]

Excellent work- the artist has talent, that's for sure! I'm impressed.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I usually don't like these.

*looks at pictures*

NOPE

Yeah, I fall into this boat as well. They always just look so creepy and unsettling. Like if I saw them in real life I'd accidentally puke on it.

That being said, I kind of like the Venusaur. It's one of the few that looks realistic, while staying true to its source, while not looking absolutely unsettling

EDIT: I finally remembered the name of the artist this guy's work reminds me of. Patricia Piccinini. She does hyperrealistic sculptures that look similarly unsettling

Spoiler

 

[ace_of_something]

I like it.
though now I realize Mewtwo's tail is actually his penis since it starts from the front and I can't unlearn that.

 

[Dakkagor]

The Dragonite looks like an Axolotl! :geeks out:

I actually really like these, though that Mewtwo and the dittos dripping of it are going to give me nightmares for a month. . .

 

[rorychief]

EDIT: I finally remembered the name of the artist this guy's work reminds me of. Patricia Piccinini. She does hyperrealistic sculptures that look similarly unsettling

Minor gripe. Piccinini doesn't 'make' anything. She comes up with an idea and uses ridiculous amounts of cash to pay sculptors, 3d artists and a slew of other technical experts to create her art. I'm not certain the preliminary sketches she does are anywhere close to how the sculptures end up, which is funny when this is sort of what's happening here. A simplistic sketch being expanded on by those with the skill and training for ultra fine detail.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I'm getting a serious Alien: Resurrection vibe from that Mewtwo.

I am glad I am not the only one that immediately thought the same.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Oh, Dragonite. What did they do to you, buddy? I also don't like how Arcanine looks feline here. Why is Gengar's line based on bats? Did I miss something from lack of exposure to anything past gen 2?

Good, if nasty looking, collection overall, though. Charizard and Venusaur look like they came right out of a game from the future. I still like the pic floating around the net of realistic Venasaur based on a toad more than this one.

They turned him into an axolotl

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warrenphotographic.co.uk%2F00108-albino-axolotl&ei=8oZ4VN2JMZbbsASTuYLYCA&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNFDoxCJdTQuuMhkDyT8xHSZmrY4lw&ust=1417271403143649

 

[Braedan]

Why do they all look like horror versions of Pokemon. I realize that certain Pokemon are fuckin creepy when you think about it, but he turned Arcanine from a big striped dog into a lion tiger hybrid from hell?

Dragonite: Chubby dragon -> Newt?
Gengar: Ghost -> Bat?
Scyther: Praying mantis -> Dinosaur?

Taking some serious liberties here...

That said, the actual art is good, I'm just not sure why they decided on horror rather than realism.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Minor gripe. Piccinini doesn't 'make' anything. She comes up with an idea and uses ridiculous amounts of cash to pay sculptors, 3d artists and a slew of other technical experts to create her art. I'm not certain the preliminary sketches she does are anywhere close to how the sculptures end up, which is funny when this is sort of what's happening here. A simplistic sketch being expanded on by those with the skill and training for ultra fine detail.

I can't even say I'm surprised. The degree to which concepts are valued and technical ability is undervalued in the art world is kind of ridiculous. As expected, I can't find anything about the names of the sculptors she hired to produce her art.

Plus, when you have Andy Warhol, probably the most famous artist of the last century (writing that hurt me), hiring people to make his art for him, this type of thing has just become par for the course to me.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I do like his realistic Pokemon, but I'm not a big fan of his interpretation of Reshiram. I understand his reasoning, but it's not how I would do a realistic one personally.

It's too bird-like for my taste. Needs more of a draconian look with fur rather than feathers. Still a great art piece though. Plus, it's nice to have an artist that draws Pokemon from all the generations rather than just the first one.

 

[rorychief]

I can't even say I'm surprised. The degree to which concepts are valued and technical ability is undervalued in the art world is kind of ridiculous. As expected, I can't find anything about the names of the sculptors she hired to produce her art.

Depressing isn't it, when the work and all its impressive qualities are owed to the sculptor, but the patron (not even going to call here an artist here) gets to attach their name to it because they're the one with the grant money. I imagine she's very good at diverting conversation away from her process and steering it then toward the meaning and symbolism behind her concept. Thing is then that only tutors,lecturers and critics care about conceptualism, while art students, practicing artist and the general public only want to know how effects were achieved, what materials were used and how long it took. At least that's how it was while I was at college.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I can't even say I'm surprised. The degree to which concepts are valued and technical ability is undervalued in the art world is kind of ridiculous. As expected, I can't find anything about the names of the sculptors she hired to produce her art.

Depressing isn't it, when the work and all its impressive qualities are owed to the sculptor, but the patron (not even going to call here an artist here) gets to attach their name to it because they're the one with the grant money. I imagine she's very good at diverting conversation away from her process and steering it then toward the meaning and symbolism behind her concept. Thing is then that only tutors,lecturers and critics care about conceptualism, while art students, practicing artist and the general public only want to know how effects were achieved, what materials were used and how long it took. At least that's how it was while I was at college.

Where'd you go to college? I'd always wondered how prevalent this attitude was. I have a couple friends at the university in my city and it just killed art for them. Even most of the students got caught up in it too. The conceptual side was ridden so hard that one of the teachers (one of the very few who'd try to teach them technical skills) complained how the majority of the 3rd and 4th year students came into his classes with no knowledge of composition or basic technical ability.

 

[uhohimdead]

I do like his realistic Pokemon, but I'm not a big fan of his interpretation of Reshiram. I understand his reasoning, but it's not how I would do a realistic one personally.

It's too bird-like for my taste. Needs more of a draconian look with fur rather than feathers. Still a great art piece though. Plus, it's nice to have an artist that draws Pokemon from all the generations rather than just the first one.

i think the artist was going for a realistic animal theme. Dragons aren't real, thus he substituted for bird. Although he could have gone with dinosaur i suppose.

 

[Hero of Lime]

i think the artist was going for a realistic animal theme. Dragons aren't real, thus he substituted for bird. Although he could have gone with dinosaur i suppose.

I'll admit that Reshiram kinda looks like a bird at first glance anyway. Maybe a mix of a bird, or a dinosaur/reptilian would look better in the absence of using a dragon look. Either way, I won't complain. The fact that he took the time to make it is cool enough anyway. Reshiram getting more recognition is fine by me!

 

[rorychief]

Where'd you go to college? I'd always wondered how prevalent this attitude was. I have a couple friends at the university in my city and it just killed art for them. Even most of the students got caught up in it too. The conceptual side was ridden so hard that one of the teachers (one of the very few who'd try to teach them technical skills) complained how the majority of the 3rd and 4th year students came into his classes with no knowledge of composition or basic technical ability.

Sorry no reply, no computer over weekend.

I attended Crawford College of Art & Design in County Cork (that's Ireland). I was shocked for my first two years at how little attention was given to technical ability. The only class that could be considered remotely technical was life drawing, and that was a one day a week module for six weeks. Regardless it was only technical in that it allowed practice of draftsmanship while in college, there was little in the way of information regarding anatomy or weight distribution or kinetic tension. Many, many modules involved being assigned random rubbish we were to 'explore'. Basically glue together collages and bullshit about how the artificiality of the paper clips is supposed to contrast with the organic leaves and twigs. Nonsense.

What your friend said doesn't surprise me. Art college is permissive and free form to a fault, students often flip flop between techniques and themes and interests over the course of four years, finally settling on something in the fourth year then. It often means they've tried a lot but aren't good at any particular thing. Students will decide to be painters in fourth year having done nothing but photography for three years, and tutors, ever afraid to stifle creativity and impose rigid boundaries, will nod and encourage this and celebrate what they see as an exciting new chapter in the students evolution to 'finding their voice.'

This was all part of what is known as the 'deskilling' of art, a conscious effort to move away from celebrating skill encouraged within the art world. The pros: for centuries only people who had the means to train all their lives could make a statement through art and expect to be taken seriously. This limited the variety among available points of view and often excluded women, the poor and ethnic minorities who so often could not attain formal training. Ideally deskilling would level the playing field so anyone of any background and any level of technical skill could express themselves and be judged on the merit of their ideas rather than a skill that required hours of practice and therefore free time. It celebrates the idea of not adhering to arbitrary standards and principles and not dismissing abstract or naive art out of hand.
The con: I wanted to learn all the standards and principles so i could then decide which if any were worth deviating from. Art college no longer provides this in the century where i was alive.

I hated it and was afraid I'd made a terrible mistake. I wanted to get good enough to express the ideas i had in my head so others could see them in as great detail as i did, i did not want to experiment and explore hippy dippy concepts and open my mind. My thing was illustration, which was considered a craft not an art, and my subjects were monsters, grotesques and general body horror imagery. This was considered childish and without merit, no engagement with social issues and no offered insight into who i was and my past and my mind. I stuck to my guns and kept on drawing monsters, I spun bullshit to justify them as manifestations of childhood fixations on fear or something like that. I made it through and got my degree with an A2. I learned a lot in college, but a lot of what i learned was self thought.

I think this is why I take such issue with patricia Piccinini. She represents the deskilling of art in that she contributes nothing but raw concept, but also perverts the egalitarian ideals of deskilling by producing art that requires obscene wealth to make. No average person could afford all the technical experts and craftsmen she uses, and in the end her work is famous for being technically excellent, not for whatever ideas its supposed to convey.

Rant over. Phew. That felt good.

 

[happyninja42]

Thank you once again Escapist staff, for giving us something other than Disney Princess Mashup #3002.

I'm not a Pokemon fan/player, but this is some creative artwork none the less. Very interesting to see.