HOME | DD
JW-Jeong β Self Portrait
Published: 2013-03-26 13:49:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 15475; Favourites: 409; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Self PortraitAcrylic on Canvas / 49 x 65cm
Related content
Comments: 84
Now way . This is breathtaking . you are impossible .Β Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm a new fan, you have the making of a prodigy haha AWESOME WORK!
π: 0 β©: 0
I have featured your work in my journal, hope you don't mind 
--> [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
your detail is amazing, how do you even get it down to every grain! i would love to learn!
π: 0 β©: 0
I have featured your amazing work here [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
I am always blown away by your paintings! 
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm stunned. Fantastic technique as usual.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is out of this world great acrylic artwork!
π: 0 β©: 0
Incredible technique of imitation, but i don't see the point of that.... honestly, i don't.
π: 0 β©: 1
what's the point of your work? or any art, then? it's safe to say that your stuff is absolutley nowhere near this brilliant, yet you dare to write such stupid comments. jealousy's a bitch, innit?
π: 0 β©: 1
What a disproportionate reaction to a mere subjective comment. I wonder why. Too much testosterone, maybe.
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
i believe this is as real painting as it gets.. you can achieved so much details if you do it in a big scale just like some of his works....
π: 0 β©: 0
Men you had broken the higher degree of awesomeness
π: 0 β©: 0
*In Sweet Brown's voice*
Well, I went here to go see me an art
Then I thought it was a picture
I said, "Oh, lord Jesus it's a painting!!"
Then Im amazed, I didn't have no word or nothing Jesus
I am very amazed.
The amazement got me,
I am SPEECHLESS!
Ain't nobody got time for that!!
But for real though, ITS SO GOOD
π: 0 β©: 1
This comment is so much win, lol.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sometimes things that look too good to be true and sadly I think that many of Jeongs paintings are fabrications
Look at many of his submissions Exif data and you will find many irregularities
You can find photoshop listed as software used on many of the pictures of his 'paintings' he might touch up his photos after they are taken, but it is still slightlyshady.
Another shady thing is that he always takes close-ups of the works (except for a few works in process that seem somewhat shopped to my untrained eye) why is this?
Some works also feature dates in their exif data that simply do not match up like this submission of his: [link] note that the exif data for the image states that it was taken in 2006, this does go against his story that it was made in 2010. I guess some of them could be due to faulty camera date, still things seem shady.
Other works look like obvious works of photoshop like this one: [link] just look at the difference around the eyebrows, either Mr Jeong has a technique that he shares with no one else in the world or that is a work of photoshop
If you put all of this together it paints a most unscrupulous picture, I think. some of the things in his album might be originals but I strongly subject that most of them are fradulent
I guess Jeong could be truthful but I think things should get questioned, you should analyse the data offered above and come to your own conclusion
π: 0 β©: 3
About the photoshop thing. I know that for many artists Photoshop is used to correct any deficiencies that occur from the scanning or photographing process (e.g. lighting conditions for photo or the setup parameters in the scanner software is not quite right) What they do is mostly correcting colors and moirΓ© patterns.
See..Jeong's paintings are huge. Scanner wont work for him so of course he needs to photograph his paintings. There are reasons for him to use photoshop... I am sure there are manufacturer would love to license his paintings and they would expect to receive digital images not the original paintings. In that case they usually request high resolution jpg format or layered Photoshop or Illustrator files. Think about him creating a portfolio too, of course he would want the digital image of his painting look as close to his paintings in reality.
Photoshop is necessary not only for digital artist it's important to painters too!
π: 0 β©: 0
"Other works look like obvious works of photoshop like this one: [link] just look at the difference around the eyebrows, either Mr Jeong has a technique that he shares with no one else in the world or that is a work of photoshop"
It's funny that you mention the eyebrows, because if you look through his work, you will notice this technique in many of his half finished works, even the one's he is clearly working on. (tho you do claim that some look photo shopped to you) I don't personally find that he drew all of these by hand too far-fetched an idea. I've personally know a few artists who draw in the same manner. (many are simply mind boggling to me)
To question everything, and call everyone out as frauds isn't always a good thing. False accusations have ruined many a great man's reputation, and sometime it's better to keep opinions based on a hunch to one's self.
For now, I will support him and his truthfulness, because I see no real evidence for the contrary.
Peace! (btw, I like your gallery Aetas)
π: 0 β©: 0
you have some point there, but tis possible..there are good painters out there..
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed, but why then are there no media coverage about him? a hyperrealist that is so good that he could create this: [link] would be the greatest photorealistic painters of our time!
Sure, it could be possible; incredible things like this happen from time to time. It just doesn't seem that likely.
I think he started with just trying to uploading some pictures he found online, claiming they where paintings of his, bewildered that people didn't call out on his bluff he continued, until where we are today.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well i did notice when he paints he only shows us the forehead and neck like it was painted on
π: 0 β©: 0
Why does the exif info on the right have camera info and states that photoshop has been used? that doesn't sound right.
π: 0 β©: 1
Because one can't actually use traditional paints right onto dA?
π: 0 β©: 1
[link] [link] See how the exif data states that that image was taken in 2011? whilst the deviation from one year later states that it is a work in progress? that sounds a bit shady
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't you have something else to do?
π: 0 β©: 1
Sometimes things that look too good to be true truely are just that, look at this other submission of his: [link] note that the exif data for the image states that it was taken in 2006, this does go against his story that it was made in 2010
π: 0 β©: 1
you should read his most recent journal, because now you're just embarrassing yourself :/.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>