Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Realism: a valid form of art?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Larkspur, California
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    7,039
    Wonderful discussion Albert, so many wonderful and thoughtful exchanges. I'm sorry I'm so late to it. I hope I can get back and contribute, but for now thank everyone for contributing to a lively read.
    // "Appreciation fosters well-being. Be well." - Byron
    //
    My ArtRage Paintings Here
    // My Comprehensive AR4 & 3 Thread Here
    64 bit Win7 HE, 16GB Ram, 2.2 GHz Intel i7 Quad Core - 8 threads; Wacom Intuios 4

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    washington, usa
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    14,454
    I am glad you enjoyed the thread Byron. I thought it was an enjoyable read as well.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    16,402
    Yeah, this was a good one to save from oblivion. Well done Screenpainter.
    Bartender, fix me a moon river. . .in a TIFFANY GLASS!!!!!!!

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    washington, usa
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    14,454
    alas, I wish I could paint like some of these. got to have inspiration though, so yes, I wanted to keep the discussion going and add to it if I find more samples for sure. you mean to imply that you think I purposefully resurrected this thread to save it.
    Last edited by screenpainter; 02-07-2012 at 10:47 AM.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    UK
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    232
    I don't think Realism is a problem but Superrealism is just not my thing. Paintings done by many artists, such as The Glassgow Boys, are of Realism, although are sometimes called Post-Impressionism or whatever. They are at least not abstract.

    One thing I like about artwork is its hand-rendered quality, its difference with our reality. It's like how Sci-Fi or roman fictions are always somehow exaggerated, otherwise they would be plain newspaper news. In other words, art is art because people manipulated it. Photography is like the same. I don't think my facebook profile picture is art, but clearly there are photos with the 'art' quality.

    Now if a Superrealistic painting took 2 years to finish, some guy might see it an artistic photo took in only 2 seconds. You explain it to him that it's actually a painting! But does the viewer really care about all the efforts behind? Like you were actually commissioned by a celebrity to paint his/her neighbour? And you had an affair with that celebrity which caused your divorce? Without your wife you could finally concentrate on painting details?...

    Well I am just joking. But the idea is, most of the viewers would judge an artwork based on its look.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ocala, Florida
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    269
    I want to read this thread, added to reading list. I hate that some may be gone soon,especially from the original artrage users, that offer so much encouragement, constructive critiques and wonderful art.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    13

    It's all in the eye of the beholder...

    What is art? Nobody can answer that. Art is not yet defined. Everybody talks about it as being a fixed concept. It is not.

    I like to talk about "photo", "painting", "sculpture", "drawing" ... without using the word "art".

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    washington, usa
    Gallery
    View images
    Posts
    14,454
    good point Sweedie.

    I love the textures in this portrait by Tun Ping Wang.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •