At first I thought they were photos. As soon as I realized (I read the caption) that they were paintings, my interest was piqued. I wondered why. Are paintings more intrinsically interesting than photos. Or is it that we believe that the painter, more than the photographer, has made decisions. On style, subject matter, content, perspective etc. Dan Witz. A strange dude.
Realist paintings like this show much more artist commitment than a quick snapshot would. I guess it depends on the subject matter though – photographs of war zones or natural desaster areas show an incredible amount of commitment as well, for example. Still, I tend to be more impressed by realistic paintings such as these. Thanks for sharing!
Commitment makes the viewer feel more… appreciative. But the art is what it is no matter how much skill, time, or patience the artist may possess.