California-based digital artist and photographer Michael Oswald, better known as MichaelO, transforms photos of women into sensual sci-fi fantasies. Using his expertise in graphic design and general artistic skills, the artist takes photos of models and then reworks the images to reflect a new scene. His work combines the utilization of photo manipulation through editing tools like Photoshop mixed with digital painting.

It's always fascinating to see what new elements a creative mind can conjure up from an already produced art form. MichaelO's series of works featuring female androids called AmalgaMATE, which is created by his master manipulation of photographs of real women, is especially alluring. Getting to see his final product as a scantily clad automaton, marionette, or some other sort of otherwise inanimate object in a sexualized form is both eerie and intriguing. Something about robots, especially those designed to look so closely to the human form, has always piqued my interest while simultaneously managed to creep me out.

MichaelO website
Email me when people comment –

You need to be a member of My Modern Met to add comments!

Join My Modern Met


  • Without the source, there is no other way to understand how well the manipulation has been executed. And the fact that source images are not very high quality images makes this work it even more special

  • I think the source image adds a lot. It gives the view a frame and perspective to the final product. I agree with Eugene, the source images illustrate the process and adds to the overall experience. Without the source image, you can't tell what was the before and what was used for the after.

  • The source images don't add a thing at all to this. For a look at how source photos are relevant and interesting, take a look at how Norman Rockwell photographed dozens of elements and scenes and composited them into a final illustration. His photographs alone are interesting and well executed and the illustration is equally well done - but both can stand independently, whereas here the snapshots are of no real value.

  • I actually disagree with Nathan. The side by side comparison illustrates the very intriguing process the artist actually went through. The fact that these awesome illustrations came from these somewhat generic photos makes it even more interesting than just the illustrations by themselves.

  • I'm not a real fan of the illustrations, but I don't see the need to show the source images at all. They're really rather poor photos. I may not care for the illustrations, but at least those are quite well executed - the photos, not at all. Just say "hey, here's some nice illustrations" and be done with it.

This reply was deleted.