MEh. Technically… this is very nice I suppose. But anyone with talent given enough time and practice can make a photo realistic drawing. Hitler was pretty good at it in fact. I'm more impressed when someone takes that photo realism and deviates from reality or becomes more expressive.  My bottom line is that if I want a photo, I take a photo. There's just not much expression in these, even if they were photos. In fact they almost look like they were copied from a photo in a grid like meticulous fashion.  I know, I'm a snobby jerk… But I like art that moves me to feel something. Not saying this isn't art, btw… I just don't find it to be all that impressive. It's not memorable, I guess? IDK… I'm just being a critic.  *Waits to be chased with torches and pitchforks*

@evilnerd- so you're saying expression through drawing and painting is obsolete and thus not art? anyone can buy a fancy camera and take pictures of trees. Trust me. I'm totally not a pro but I own a $600 DSLR and my photos come out pretty damn good. Drawing and painting this well takes true talent.

@evilnerd talent should be appreciated.

So what? That is not Art! If you want something photorealistic than take a picture with a camera! This kind of stuff was allready done in 18th Century. Time to move on!

Brilliant? It's not! If you want something photorealistic than take a picture with a camera! This kind of stuff was allready done in 18th Century. Time to move on!

i think this is just “realism.” hyper real has hyperness involved.

I wonder if these drawings are copied from an actual photo, or if the artist makes it up as he goes along. Either way it's brilliant, but if it's absolutely original its almost Rainman like.