ArtRage 5 Product PageArtRage Lite Product PageArtRage for iOS Product PageArtRage for Android Product PageArtRage  Android Oil Painter Free Product PageArtRage  Free Demos Page

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88

Thread: Realism: a valid form of art?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    washington, usa
    Posts
    14,215

    Realism: a valid form of art?

    Comments welcome expressing your opinion on whether realism is a valid form of art worthy of the artist's pursuit in the age of instant photography, or would a photo give you just as much as the finished piece. I am of the opinion that it is still a worthy pursuit and enjoy the fine realists at work out there. Maybe share a few of the fine realists work out there.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by screenpainter; 05-04-2009 at 09:39 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    144
    Well, being a photographer mainly, I see myself as an artist even when taking photos. Things like composition, capturing emotions, the choice of colors (e.g. when postprocessing images), using DOF - just to mention a few... all of those things can make a photograph a piece of artwork. This means (for me personally) that a painting which belongs to the field of realism definitely is a "valid artwork". No doubt at all.

    Marco

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    38
    I would say that photography is a valid art form, and photorealistic art is a valid artform, and neither can be merely dismissed.

    However, I would say that even when painting photorealistically, on some level the artist's intent or mood or point of view should come thru. The painting you posted by Andrew Wyeth, while close to photorealistic, still has a sensibility in the lighting and texture and color and mood that shows his artistic vision.

    Painting (or sculpture) that's drawn photorealistically merely for the purpose of appearing photorealistic ... well, it's a formal challenge of media and technique, to be certain, but its Artistic (with a capital 'A') merits might need to be discussed and argued and defended.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    241
    Isn't it a sad state of affairs when this question can be asked even rhetorically? ;)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    washington, usa
    Posts
    14,215
    yeah it is...
    Glad you agree.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    22,556
    Is there any question?

    It's sorta odd flipping the argument in the opposite direction from what is usually argued. It's usually the ground breakers who have a really hard slog carving out a niche for themselves.

    The whole business of Norman Rockwell -- haven't heard that one in several decades. Opposing Norman Rockwell is like opposing Laurel and Hardy. Where's the sense of it? I can only think that such arguments came from people who were trying to grow in different directions, and make a point and gain respectability.

    Artists and art marketers are very territorial by nature. Comes with the uh. . . territory.

    There will always be a place for realism. It's very accessible to the common guy because it's where he lives. Just that the market value ebbs and flows. Has nothing to do with appreciation or the art itself.

    Just because something is painted realistically doesn't make it good, and doing something disorienting or completely new doesn't make it lousy.

    By the way, that second painting above is wonderful. And I could give you reasons why I think so. But I'm not a big fan of Weyeth's Helga paintings. They seem stiff and pasty to me, especially when I know what he was capable of. He could do magic. I love his watercolors in real life. The ones I've seen glowed with mastery of the medium like no others I have ever seen. They touched something in me at a very core level. They were fresh and they showed a real artist's hand at work.

    Might have been that I aspired to his level in those paintings. Might be the colors or subject or any number of things. When art can do that for me, it's there. In this case it was realistic in an abstract way -- because I consider splashing paint around and pulling it together in a place like God running his hand through the mud and pinching a bit into a man.

    And the fun is to see how far away from real one can get from being an exact replica and still have that miracle happen. So I'm quite okay with painterliness through abstraction and on to even more remote looks. It's exciting.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    washington, usa
    Posts
    14,215
    The painting by Dru Blair is a perfect example of "why not just take a photo."
    There is nothing there but a photo. There seems to be no qualities brought to the table that a photo wouldn't bring. And the photo was pretty devoid of interest to begin with.
    I love Manfred Jurgens work.
    Also this fellow...
    http://www.danielgreeneartist.com/po.../redstraps.htm
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Windsor, Ont, Canada
    Posts
    140
    i think this type of question is common in forums, in deviantArt forum i hear people asking simular questions like "is photography a serious art form, or digital painting is not a real art form."

    what i really hear from this type of questioning is "is it worth my time to pursue this form of style"

    that could only be answered by the individual who wants to put their time into an form of art.

    i feel that "the messege" of the image is stronger than that of the tools or the style used to create the image.

    steve

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Vevey, Switzerland
    Posts
    332
    my opinion - very simple answer to the question:

    Yes it is

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rome (Italy)
    Posts
    24,122
    Hey, gzairborne ... may I had one guy from my little hometown to represent impressionistic realism?
    http://www.napoleonenicodemo.com/
    As I said somewhere else, In my view there's a difference between tracing and picking a picture more or less passively and changing/ interpresting what You see trasposing it into an ideal of beauty that produces an alternative mental reality with a more intense and meaningful image and harmony which seem as real or likely as reality. This is still art, (You do not need to be abstract or expressionist to communicate Yourself) and an exclusive kind of art too (not everybody has that combination of talent and skill) which has little or nothing to do with photografic art, apart from the common basic aesthetic rules any visual art should observe to please.
    Panta rei (everything flows)!

Posting Permissions

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