The Case for Realism 

To add on to this, just how rewarding is the process for the artist? If they want to be praised on technique alone, that would be fine. But the first thing anyone does upon looking at a photorealistic painting is look for any flaws or “tells,” not really paying attention to the subject itself. Worse still if if they do find a blemish, because that will “ruin” the painting for them, however impressive it is.

I think artists like that probably only draw photorealism for egotistical purposes. If they get praise on how "photographic" it is they'll feel rewarded. If not, well...

That's an important point. I see this defense in the scope of all the other cases I've made for minimalism, abstraction, land art, performance, etc., and not as a claim that it is the "best" kind of art. And certainly not the ONLY kind of good art. It's one of the very many ways people have made worthwhile art.

I'm not a photorealist. I'm a hobbiest artist who draws a lot of cartoony stuff, but I like to draw realism sometimes. I think it's a little unfair to assume that people only create realistic art for praise. I find it genuinely fun and relaxing to sit down every once and a while with a refrence photo, and try to get as close as I can to it. There's something very satisfying about it, and I am always in awe of people who can achieve photorealism. It requires incredible care, time investment, and skill I cannot fathom. I also disagree with an idea brought up on this channel a few times: that art needs to have a purpose. I draw because it's fun. Sometimes I just want to draw a picture of some kittens playing together in a feild. No, I don't do it trying to get the viewer to think about something profound (it's usually just me, anyway), but I don't think that means it's not art. It's art because I made it. Also, I'm pretty sure art that is more realistic tends to sell better than modern art. If an artist is living off of their craft, it makes more sense to strive for it at least sometimes from a practical standpoint.

@OhMagicalUnicornLord Good post, and I concur with pretty much everything you say. There is just one thing I would add, and that is to my knowledge there is a limit to the amount of realism that a typical art buyer wants. Just in broad terms, people like realism but they also like to see the hand of the artist too. When painting is "too photographic" it can seem cold and academic. On the other hand, there is a market for hyper-realism, just not as large as that for more painterly realism.

It's kinda weird to read, identify with and like a comment than to realize it's from an acquaintance of yours xD nice to read from you lin

si

I'd question your use of "but" in this sentence. How about: I love a lot of the works shown in this video BECAUSE of what separates each of them from a truly perfectly realistic representation?

Hey Eric! I agree and like your channel

Saying "but" tends to be more critical than "because" - personally I prefer it. I question photorealism anyway.

Ya, a drawing perfektly copying a foto might be impressive in level of skill but not in as a creative individuell produkt. Then i would prefer seeing the photograf

Eric, I think you're touching on an important point. If I'm understand you correctly, you're seeing the futility of representation. It can never be perfect because it's removed from the actual thing, to some degree. IF it does look "perfect," but we know it's an illusion, we still perceive it differently .That becomes interesting, because it makes us think about things we see as illusions, which we try to look through to find meaning. Because it's a representation, we think about how things are represented and compare that to how we perceive things to actually be. This gap gets played with to various aims

There’s one advice that’s always stuck with me about capturing gesture. It’s not about how many lines you get there. Throw enough lines and you’ll eventually get a read on the figure (like how I am typing out these redundant lines despite the point already being made). Anyone can do that. It shows more skill if you can capture life in as few lines as possible. Not exactly your point since the advice is more about efficiency, but I thought I’d add to it.

photorealism (not sure if u were refering to that) actually is meant to be seen an a piece kf art who looks a lot like a photograph, thats kind of the point that u are aware that u are viewing a painting/drawjnf

I have the EXACT same opinion Richard!

Photorealism can be good for recreating things or people that don't exist anymore. I also like realistic paintings that are a little askew like Magritte.

Richard Hannay woah u took my thoughts right out of my head..

Same

A lot of games accidentally achieve this, especially as graphics keep advancing. So far it's funny but at one point it'll probably become more creepy.

What's the uncanny valley?

@gheddi thanks for this explanation! Makes sense to me now! I appreciate you♡ ~love from Texas

Clarissa Higginbotham Not easy to master but more or less easy to have a quick taste.

Realism is actually easy. Learn drawing fundamentals for 1 year and you're good. Drawing from imagination, using your head to come up with ideas is what's truly hard; not copying photos.

@@nine-vi7rw I become an impressionist because I can't master realism

Easy to look and paint .

I am one of those photographers who, for the most part, doesn't get hyper-realism. I appreciate the skill and technique, but I often struggle to find some new revelation in the translation from photo to painting. maybe there is some jealousy, as I do some commercial art reproduction, where I use photography to reproduce a painting (for posters, etc). In this case, the photograph is not considered a unique piece, even though it takes a lot of skill and technique to capture the painting. Why is copying one way considered Art, while copying the other way is mere reproduction?

@@AlanKlughammer That's an interesting question. I would argue that intention plays a big role in the perception of a piece as being an art object or simply documentation. For instance, if someone was to photograph architecture and they were to do it in a very documentary style, it would depend solely on the intention of the photographer whether that piece was to be considered “art” or “document”. I think about artists like Robert Longo, who basically destroys the distinction between art and representation by representing the representation. Or Jonathan Monk who takes documentation of his past work and present it as a new artistic object itself.

@Avery Suzuki I agree that intention is a large part of ART vs documentation, but it does not define it. Sometimes, an exercise in copying may become art, or an attempt at art becomes more valuable as a documentation. I guess, as a viewer, I determine what, for me, becomes art. Which is part of the reason ART is so difficult, yet so rewarding...

I wasn't aware of her work! Thanks so much for bringing her up here. And I see she very recently passed away. Here's the obit if anyone cares to do any further reading: www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/obituaries/mary-pratt-dead.html

Thanks to this comment I googled her. She has incredible painting!

😅😅

i think the analogy would be closer with beatbox than with acapella tho

I like the comparison to acapella, but would disagree with the second point. It seems the whole point of realism is the technical. I say this because in terms of color harmony, perspective, or other principles, the only thing that distinguishes the painting from the photo is the medium. It’s the fact that it’s crafted by hand.

Yup.. and its done in acrylic paint too. I have tried photorealism with acrylics & it's a very difficult medium for this style. Insane.

The answer to this is "lots of time".

@@Luxalpa effort and patience as well.

It's actually made of porcelain. still not less worse

Yes, in either case: YOWCH

slayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

an opinion

What do you get from a hypertealistic painting outside of "wow that must've taken thousands of hours"?Hyperrealism aspires to completely replicate something a camera makes in less than a second,also the talent argument is retarded because hyperrealism skill level isnt that high,especially since projectors have been invented. Also you are probably confusing modern with postmodern art.

Copying something from a photograph is the lowest level of talent required than actually using your mind to create something new.

Realism is very impressive. But it is a sub-category. Art is super expansive. I have scrolled past (because Tumblr is the medium through which I experience art mostly) extremely realistic artwork with just a "that was cool" thought in my head and then have lingered for several minutes at scribbles that could pass off as "doodles" to someone else but which I myself see great value in. Art can be and is a very personal thing. It is awesome that you are striving for realism in your art! I wish for your efforts to yield results. But if that is not a standard you can ever meet perfectly, that does not make you a lesser artist in my opinion. Realism isn't the only standard out there.

Your skill in Art is like your voice.. maybe you like your voice or hate it or simply put up with it , but what matters is what you say with it.... So what matters is what you draw and how you express yourself...not your skills

I love hyper-realistic paintings, because they instantly cause me to have an awe-inspiring feeling, because it's as though something that is two-dimensional appears to be three-dimensional, even possibly alive; it's like magic! But, there are impressionist pieces, abstract pieces, and surrealistic pieces that I admire just as much, for their creativity and the feelings they evoke in me.

Hyper Realism and copying real life is more of a skill, it is art I don't wanna say that it is less of an art then something else. I prefer art that isn't made just of copying skills, I like art that's made from imagination or real life in but see it made interpreted by the artist, in its style sometimes exaggerating different aspects like color or proportion, giving a specific mood, adding contrast with the use of different elements, color or value. Also paintings that are just more painterly:) are more interesting to look at, those that aren't hyper realistic dot by dot, those that simplify details into bigger shapes. That s what I m talking about when say art, hyper realistic paintings can be done by anyone with some good training, it is more about mechanical skills but "good" art is not just about replicating the real world, it's about interpreting it

That's different from doing hyperrealism for finished pieces though. I think everyone is encouraged to be able to draw as realistically as possible, because that's how you can then make art that is semi-realistic or extremely stylised. That's why people are encouraged to learn the realistic fundamentals before starting to draw anime style.

...unless you're a naive artist or savant.

deadeaded not really, because even if we talk about ‘technical mastery’, that’s still rather vague and subjective concept. Also I don’t think that term ‘meritocracy’ really can be applicable in this particular case, because art world isn’t really a hierarchical power structure, especially not a hierarchy based on skill nor on significance of your message (which is a good thing really, because it means that theoretically every artist has his own place in art community). Also you’re forgetting that there are much more types of art being produced over than fine art, like animation, illustration work, concept art, video game design, fashion design, architecture and so on. Which means that restricting art community to the hierarchy based on such a vague concept may destroy the industry completely.

Carl Krasnenky The art world is _totally_ hierarchical. The people at the top get put in museums, have their work auctioned off for absurdly high prices, or get lauded by critics and academics. In the other industries you mentioned there are hierarchies as well. Who gets hired to animate, and how much control do they have over the direction of the project? Whose clothes gets worn? Which video games get played or win awards? etc. You may not like the fact that these are hierarchies, but their existence is undeniable.

deadeaded As a painter, i think you’re wrong. For me, it’s always easier to paint realistic painting than abstract (i mean GOOD abstract). When you take a picture and then you print it very big, maybe you can even use a projector.. i mean it takes time but you just have to put the right color in the right place. This is it basicaly. Yes it take so much time compare to abstract or other kind of painting but it’s not really complicated to make photorealism today. (The fact is photorealism is not just about the realism there is other art rules engage in it...) When you paint an abstract painting, you try to create a particuliar emotion,feeling with an abstract language. You apply the same rules that you use for figurative (composition, colors, rythm, light...) but with the paint as subject itself. Not everyone is able to make good abstract intentionaly because when you are able to, it means that you already know what the human eyes find « beautiful ». Subjectivity doesnt really exist. The brain « loves » some colors together for example. All this rules are use in abstract painting for themselves as subject. And it’s more complicated to learn the rules and learn to use it than to learn to copy reality with all the technology that we have today. Just my opinion as a good but bored photorealism student and a happy abstract painter.

I'm curious as to what people see as realist and what is not... I feel like different people has a different definition of what art is a realist art. For example, I don't consider Norman Rockwell a realist painter because you can still tell that it's a painting... but from reading the comments here, it seems like this applies as "realist" to them. Another example: I don't think La Pieta is realist but wax figures that tries to copy famous people to a tee are realist...

@@RichardHannay ofc Norman Rockwell is a realist.What you consider realism is hyperrealism or photo realism,which is the most boring/useless art form out there.

Well you had to put some craft into painting

There was a 1970's artist named Chris Burden that had his friends shoot him in the arm with a rifle so make of that what you will...Contemporary is all about forging on into experimental endeavors.

Self-mutilation is indeed a very good example of extreme performance art. But I could still call that one art, as the main motive is making some sort of statement. Plus, blood paintings etc are a thing. Even though I don't understand it. Committing crimes though would be different though. Robbing a bank and calling it art, might be a good example of being too experimental.

There is the conflict between art for art's sake, against art for a cause. Artists that want political change don't get along with artists just seem to be doing it for funsies.

well why would something be "too" experimental ?

Well, that is a good question. My first thoughts were that you could intuitively know when it is too experimental, but that would be a very weird criterium. I'm not sure how I would define that, but can art for example be discriminating? Or can someone commit a crime in the name of art?

your right

Realism is supposed to depict everyday life and usually does so in a sympathetic light, yet without overly romanticising it. For instance although Van Gough was expressionistic in his work, he had some realist spirit to his expressionistic depictions of working peasants, I could sense the hard work they needed to do every day, and there was much of that sympathetic eye, the realisation in spirit that other beings (including obviously peasants) are human and go through the similar suffering and work and usefulness and love. I see the realist movement to be exposing the upper classes to the everyday life of their employees and the people around them which has a dramatic effect of reducing dehumanisation. Unfortunately the world is turning back to a feudal system, a feudal capitalistic system which dehumanises everyone except the upper class who are put on false pedestals worshipped almost like demigods.

vice versa

I don't think so, like reading , why read , if we have movies, we can recreate what we read with all the technology, it's in the feel i think. Just my opinion ✋

lots of artists starts with realism until they find their own style, which they can put their creativity in

that what im sayin

Agree.

you welcome ;)

They just did Basquiat on PBS television. Check your local listings.

Solid

Daniel McElroy I see what you did there

Just like to add, there are some great paintings in this video showing the case for Realism. I'm not of the belief that it is merely a matter of technical skill or copying from life… One only has to look at a Goya to see how ideas are expressed by the construction of figurative paintings.