I'm definitely not into hyper-realism paintings (I prefer when you can tell they're paintings but the style makes it *feel* real), but I do appreciate the talent and patience they were able to achieve with the finished products.
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
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.
To me the real problem is that most people think of the realist approach as the only one worth pursuing. They see a photorealistic painting and just because it makes them go "wow" they automatically label it as good art. And when they come across, let's say, medieval art, cubism or even modern comics (art forms where there is some kind of synthesis or abstraction) they think of those styles as inferior just because in their eyes the authors are not trying to replicate "reality".
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.
I've always been haunted by realism precisely for the "stunt" one gets when seeing a realistic painting first-handedly, your mind tricks you into believing that there is no way this was painted, and for this I sought to learn and deconstruct what seemed to be impossible to achieve, and found out that it is much more than copying what you see--a craft that is, when painting a face you get certain serenity specially on large canvases, you're a god at work, as opposed to the immediate catharsis you get from more abstract styles, realism is indeed a reinvention and a control over what the artist wants you to see
I love a lot of the works shown in this video, but I still feel as if every reason i like them is rooted in what separates them from a truly perfectly realistic representation.
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?
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
i like how photo realism makes me slowly descend in the uncanny valley, if i made realist art itd be my goal to create a surrealist mood from a realistic image
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.
There's obviously a lot of talent and value in photorealistic art; I'm constantly practicing realism for the sake of technique, but I personally could never have the desire to pursue it for actual pieces. I think because I see the real world constantly I try to create more surreal or fantasy works myself, but I understand the value in every art style.
Happy you did this sarah. In online art discussions I often see photorealism looked down upon for being redundant to the photograph. My father is a photorealist, and I'm in art school trying to keep that sort of work going. It's nice to have a video we can point to to defend the work we do! Keep it up
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...
As strange as it may seem, I feel you can't really gain an appreciation for realism until you've seen a sculpture by Duane Henson in person. It's one thing to see the works in a book or on the internet, but when you're close to the real thing and can view it from many angles it just becomes fascinating. The amount of detail seems often greater than what any photograph can provide. You can see the textures and get the feeling that the work will start to move at any moment, yet it stays still and never changes. It's both quite fun yet eerie at the same time.
I don't think it was a Duane Henson sculpture but I went to a Guillermo Del Toro exhibit about his work and his influences and there was a scary realistic sculpture of a larger than life man that really creeped me out.
I've always struggled with appreciating photorealism because 'who cares, cameras exist'. But I think a lot of it was envy because while I create art, it's mostly sketches because I do not have the attention span, as in, I think about all the other things I could be doing; usually meaning sitting around watching youtube videos lmao
My favourite (hyper)realist paintings are Mary Pratt's domestic scenes, especially her jam jars. I saw a video at the National Gallery once about her process, working from slides, and it makes so much sense when you see how much light comes through in her final paintings, that she was studying the images from a backlit medium. She also made a very good case for why she bothers putting so much effort into recreating such simple moments in such a taxing medium, essentially that her experience of the world is that so many fleeting things call out to her to pay rapt attention. And so many of those moments have to do with traditionally feminine spheres such as food preservation which typically don't get the kind of glorification she has given them through her art. A national treasure. I love her.
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
"Photographic images, movies, tv, magazines etc., are as important a part of our reality as actual phenomena. They strongly affect our perception of actual phenomena." That's a great quote obviously add computers and cellphones for today. I think that's something that most people are are totally unaware of.
One could think of realism and photorealism as acapella, you could listen to music with instrumental accompaniment, but sometimes its nice to consider the diversity of human voice at recreating the specific timbres of instruments. I would add that realism isn't just showing off methodical or robotic skill, its emphasizing the greater composition of the artwork by making the viewer almost forget about the execution. You can think are clearly about the choices an artist makes about color harmony, linear perspective, and other principles of design if you can be tricked into forgetting you're looking at carefully placed blobs of goo on a canvas.
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.
One of the things I appreciate most about realism is that which clearly separates it from the real. Sarah talked about the changes an artist might make to their subject matter, either by filtering and editing or by the physical elements used to generate the art. That marble trash bag by Nelson took my breath away, because even as the art approaches its source matter, it becomes more and more notably not the thing it approximates. I love the juxtaposition.
People can become very judgmental of realism, mostly driven by jealousy. Realist artists share they're unique point of view, creating beauty and even they're own believable reality. I'm tired of people critizicing realism diverting from the real purpose without even educating themselves.
I don't know if you'll see this, but I am totally blown away by your videos and know I will never look at or think about art (and probably the world) the same again. Thank you.
Nicely done, got my mind rolling... and here's where it ended up: realism reminds us that nothing is as real as the real. Especially in our modern times where we are inundated with all these photos and images, with (nearly) each one of them a framed, adulterated, curated, manipulative little slice of all that surrounds us. I concur that it likely is changing the way we actually see and experience things; as we walk around we might have a filter going on in our eyes/minds that is framing things only certain ways, or always seeking out what will be that next perfect photo to post for all the likes on our social media. If so, aren't we missing out? Seeing only a narrow band of what's around us as we focus on those photo-like moments? Could realism be a way of reminding us of the artifice, of turning the lens back on ourselves in a way, and enticing us to see the artifice and to then see both more broadly and deeper? Perhaps to even be more present to all around us? Not asking this rhetorically, I'm now genuinely curious. As I said, got my mind rolling! Which is always a great thing. Thank you! :)
Realism is always my favorite style of painting because it requires more skill, patience, and time to produce a complete product (at least to my summation). More pain, more gain style if you will. Anyway, great video!
I was really into photorealist art in high school, especially John Salt. I think it's just that tiny, almost unconscious, amount of fuzziness and unreality that adds so much emotion and beauty to his paintings that wouldn't quite be there in the reference photos.
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.
I've been working on a Seminary paper on Marcuse's aesthetics, this video gave me some solid points to use for my argument against his rejection of realism and anti art. Thank you!
Any artist can tell you, no matter what style you want to work with, you will have to learn realism first and foremost. You have to know the rules before you can break them.
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.
The case for realism is that there's a certain longing to see a display of skill that surpasses others. We want to see artists test the limits of their knowledge and abilities. These days, modernist art is considered some of the best simply because the artist is expressing themselves and yet leaving the art itself open to infinite interpretations by viewers. This floods the public mind with chaos and does not elevate our understanding of how to live life, or help us understand the truths that transcend generations. Modernist, cubist, and abstract art leave a gaping hole that can only be filled by objective observation and clear meaning in the art itself. That's why the Renaissance can still wow the public today. Its religious as well as some secular themes, and an inherently realist approach to painting human figures was able to take eternal truths and make them much more apparent to anyone who looks at them. That's what the Ghent Altarpiece, the School of Athens, and the Garden of Earthly Delights do. Modernist, abstract, impressionist, and cubist art cannot hope to do that anywhere near as well as realist or classical art.
Wow. Beautifully said. I was in the middle of painting a very small canvas with as much precision as I could, and I kept thinking, why am I putting myself through this tedious endeavour and why is it that I feel the urge to be so precise with all of my pieces. - maybe I’ll just change my approach to Impressionism and be ‘free’. Then I jumped on here (probably subconsciously looking for somebody to justify what I may already feel). Thanks for broadening my perspective. It’s made me realise what I’m trying to say through my work
These are some of the best most concise videos about aspects of art history out there, but goes a little too fast and furiously for most high school students. would love to see future videos slow down a bit.
There's nothing I love more than realism in art. From photography, to films, to paintings, to books, our world is so fantastic and beautifully complex in itself, we don't need to add anything more to it
I really like Realism, because you can distinguish the works of art by skill, you can spot mistakes and the lack there of. I know abstract art is also fascinating but there is something raw and admirable about realism the shear skill that is needed is impressive. You as the viewer instinctively know, that it took years to master this art. It is similar to sculptures you stand in front of them and you don’t care about the intention or whatever and just admire the fact that there are humans that can transform a rock into a lifelike statue. Honestly it is one of the few art forms where I can really hate a piece but still admire it, that is rare.
Sometimes art is also about the process. For me when I decide to create something photorealistic it is also about the process of creating. I think people who don't appreciate photorealism ignore that. They're very quick to talk about the process for Jackson Pollock, etc....but they never really think about how beautiful the process is for someone who is capturing the beautiful light, color and textures of the world around us. Sometimes just sitting and capturing something truly as it it and also as I see it (because honestly photorealism isn't always 100% as it is...its through the our eyes) is just as (if not more) rewarding as the final piece.
I really like photorealist, hyperrealist, ultra realist, and realist painting. But my favorite is impressionist painting, especially watercolor, that's fairly realistic. I don't like the abstract, modernist, or minimalist stuff. (Not sure if I'm using the correct terminology.) The technical expertise involved in realist and impressionist painting is, for me, a joy to contemplate, and the paintings are a joy to look at. I don't feel the same wonderment and joy when I look at, say, a Pollock painting as I do when I look at, say, a Vermeer or Sargent painting. But my hat is off to those who are able to appreciate the abstract stuff. Anyway, yeah, go realism. Interesting video. Thanks and thumbs up.
"Photographs, as we well know, crop, omit, and mislead." You could make an entire video just on this one statement. This is especially true with the corporate news media, which has turned into a propaganda machine.
One thing that distinguishes realistic paintings from photographs is size: paintings are generally much bigger than photographs. It is possible to make large photographs, but not common. It is very challenging to process very large sheets of photographic paper in the required chemical baths. I used to say that the common 8" x 10" was too small, but, have you ever tried to get a 16" x 20" or larger piece of paper into a tray of developer solution without streaking caused by uneven development? Digital photography and printers make it much easier to make very large photographs, which are now being produced as "art". There has long been a debate whether photography could be considered "art" at all. Some of the same arguments could be turned against realistic paintings, the mere representation of objects. Illustration is often considered to not be "art", even though it may display a high level of skill, effort and patience. There was a time when art was produced in guilds, workshops, studios. Often it was not signed by any artist, sometimes it was produced under the direction of a master by journeymen, same as furniture or clocks would be made. It was an economic activity, not "art". Very detailed and exact scale models of airplanes, ships, cars, buildings, railroads are often called "art". These are effectively 3D realism, a form of sculpture. See also, doll and puppet making. "Primitive" people make cultural objects that are considered "art"; polychrome clay pots, dance masks, katsina dolls or other objects of daily use. They may not have been intended to fulfill the role of "art" in the originating society, but they are bought, collected and displayed as "art" in ours. SFMOMA had a show of Danish Modern furniture. These were not photographs or paintings, they were actual pieces of furniture. Can't get much more realistic than the object itself. We admire art that represents magnificent or beautiful scenes in nature. Shouldn't we consider the original scene to be art? It certainly has the original magnificence and beauty. Art is related to artifact; something made by humans. Art has many functions. Most art is used purely for decoration. People put paintings on the wall, pots on the mantle piece, jewelry on the hand purely for decoration. The vast majority of art pieces have nothing whatsoever to do with academic discussions of "art". In fact, most art is made by amateurs. Just look at how many art students are taking art classes for purely recreational purposes. Classifying objects as "art" or not "art" is pretty much a waste of time. Anything that somebody makes and put out for us to see is art. It is more fruitful to consider the intent or function of the piece. What does it do, what does it tell us, what was the intent, what does it express, how does it work? There are many forms of art; painting, sculpture, literature, theater, pottery, jewelry, puppetry, and so on. Each genre has its special features and each piece must be appreciated individually. Art has become so academicized that an artist can't just produce art; the artist must have a theory, must write a manifesto, must belong to a school, must take a stance, must defend a position. All this yapping is an irrelevant distraction from the work.
you are a good source in regard to the different styles in nectar chrome slide, Kodachrome and their enhancements there is so much more to learn to extract all these different pieces of knowledge to create something old and new in different directions, thank you.
I’ve always had a dislike for photorealistic paintings, mostly because people have been conditioned to value art, and even their own skill level, on how much like real life the piece is. People will see a perfect realistic painting and think it’s absolutely amazing, and then look at a less realistic piece, but with so such substance and meaning behind it, and think it’s inferior. Is artistic criticism based solely on the image, and not the feelings and emotions it’s trying to convey? I’m really not sure myself. When people ask what style I do, I usually reply: “as realistic as I can do and then it turns out like a child drew it.” And I mostly do that because I definitely envy those who can do realism. I’ll sit in my art class and see all these artists doing super realistic stuff, and then I end up beating myself down and telling myself I don’t belong there. Is art just the act of making something look as much like the real thing as possible? Or is it more?
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
I love The Art Assignment and am always happy when a new video gets released. And an even happier when a piece from my local art museum is included. (This time Betty by Gerhard Richter as part of the St Louis Art Museums collection. It is a grest piece and is made even better by the juxtaposition of where the museum has hung it. It is surrounded by modern art which all of the people I've taken, respond to as 'I can do that'... then ask why a photograph is hanging next to these other pieces? To which I point out it is a painting. Which immediately gets them interested and looking closer. Always a womderful experience. If you are ever in the area, highly recommend!)
While many argue that realistic paintings simply copy reality and that makes them uninteresting, I would like to disagree. I think that they still represent the unique point of view of their artists since everyone sees reality differently. Such POV may not reflect on the colors they used or the strokes on which they built the artwork, but the subjects they chose to focus on and how they chose to focus on them still say something. They are never empty. That, aside from the technical mastery, makes them still worthy of interest and recognition.
That image of Matisse and Zita really grabbed me. I don't know much about the artist or art for that matter (although I do art all the time) but that image sent me on a journey for hours just reading about Matisse and his models. Zita apparently wasn't with him for long but many others were and it was a great story of a great artist and very tormented man.
As someone who is interested in realism i usually mix other elements with realism such as adding interesting colors or shapes into a otherwise hyper realistic piece
Well made, well narrated, very informative. Thank you for showing me Idelle Weber, Don Eddy and Clive Head. I feel like I always attempted to do something in them, capturing the best I could random objects just as they are, without caring for composition or subject, of course never achieving that level. Now I know whom I tried to imitate.
I REALLY love "The Case For" series, mainly because I think it's equal parts informative and provocative, which means that it approaches the subject with just the right amount of information for you to feel the urge to learn more, and that surely is Art. Anyways, please, keep up with this series and also the excellent work. P.S.: Do "The Case For Comics"!
I'm negatively biased of realism or most of it is because of envy and jealousy. I do art but not in such of really into realism. Here, in our country, most of the artists in social media do realism, or even hyper realistic. Yeah, I'm envied their skill. Then I realized, after watching this video, I somehow admire the realism art shown from this video. I distinguished why I hate the realism arts that I see in social media; it is the subject. Most realism social media arts are 'wow' because they made so-much-realistic art of a very famous celebrity, or a commission of a very realistic pencil sketch of their gf/bf, or whatever, and they gain so many likes. From the realism arts shown from the video, just from its particular subjects I could feel the mood, the nostalgia, the atmosphere, the time, the disgust, the curiosity, the life. These artists are like Gustave Courbet, but 50s, 60s, and so on. I remembered this woman photographer named Vivian Maier and she took a photograph of life and time itself. I now admire those kinds of particular realists.
I've read some of the comments and for some reason the discussion seems to center around the pros and cons of photorealism. Realism is not photorealism.
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.
As a photographer, I struggle with the imbalance. A painted version of a photograph is considered ART, but a photograph of a painting is mere reproduction.
This is great! Can we also have a video about modern representational realists. Like Quang Ho, Jeremy Lipking, Rosmary Frantzen, David Kassan, and the like?
I can somewhat agree when it comes to photography. Sure, it’s able to capture the actual moment in our life. But if you’re able to actually paint the moment in that moment right now. Is absolutely amazing, some may say it takes a lot of time. But that’s essentially the point of painting in realism or sculpturing. It takes time to create and achieve realism as you would see it in real life. Many would photograph moments you wouldn’t want to forget, but for those who take time to paint or sculpt those moments. Is fantastic, you can achieve that realism on a 2D surface. Or if you sculpt, you’re able to create 3D realism, which I find the most fascinating. Able to achieve realism, that you can actually see in real life, will always astonish us even in today’s world.
I love the comic effect photorealist paintings have. Imo it kind of enhances reality and just like impressionism gives it a dreamy vibe. I really don't know why people reject comic art as a form of art..
Maybe it's not pertinent but there's also the factor of galleries. Looking at a picture in a gallery next to a realistic painting in a gallery is probably going to be more impactful (I would think).
At art college reality was an issue of the day. I visited New York in 1980 and seen the artists at Sea cliff who was doing photorealism. In England it was conceptual art, so there was a division. Realism is an effort to portray something seen and yet if it was magnified, then it looked more abstract and to be exact abstracted from reality. There is still a quest to find a visual language that is possible by the artist, but it can change with time.
I was under the impression that Realism was referring to the technique (i.e. realistic results) while Naturalism was referring to the context (i.e. portraying real-life scenes and faces, not idealistic). Love your videos! :)
I'm personally a pretty big fan of social realism. Stories that are about like a bus driver or something that aren't very exciting and just chronicle the every day life that you might be very familiar with. One of my favorite poets is Dan Turell and a lot of his songs and poems are just about every day life, in fact one of his songs is named "I like the every day". It's also funny how this kinda has reemerged in the form of the simulator game.
My painting have alot of inspiration from Warhol and surrealist artists. My art ( at least how I think to describe it) is a deco surrealist portrayal of everyday life. If I tried to make a photorealistic painting I'd go mad.
Some of those oil paintings looked so real, you could have passed them off as photographs. Some of them, I could see they were paintings after looking for a while but some of them, just wow.
Hello! Would it be possible for you to discuss whether there is a limit to being 'too experimental'? I've been thinking about this in a musical sense, as some people call certain types of music 'noise', while there is something as noise music. Is there an equivalant in art? (Feel free to discuss with me comment section, I'm in an artsy mood)
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, 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?
Say whatever you want, photorealism and hyperrealism for me are best styles in the Art world! Again, it is my taste only, but I also strongly disagree with the ones who say how they don't have a message, or are not "profound".. That's just bullshit, many hyperrealistic works are not only fun or technically astonishing, but they actually make me to think whenever I see them. They certainly have a message and purpose! Photorealism and Hyperrealism are my favorite art movements, and best art. Now I repeat, it is my opinion only, so if you disagree, don't bother yourself and myself in a debate that can needlessly turn into an argument.
I would just like to add my opinion to this controversy, I do think that realism is a real art style, for many people they use art as a tool to relax, and for others it’s their job. I think we should just appreciate all the talent and just admire the work.
Great defense of Realism's art work content's worth. Thanks a lot for a very articulated and high quality analysis of the subject! I learned a lot! But a brief caveat about the fact that very sophisticated content can be found in rudimentary technique art works would have been nice. Such are the works by the artist Stik, for instance.
I have seen works from the 18th and 19th century at the museum here in Bentonville called Crystal Bridges and I must say they are impressive. But for me however, my interest lies in styles like surrealism, fauvism and German expressionism, and abstract styles like cubism, futurism and the works of Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky. I've adopted painting as a hobby since of March of last and recently got two sets of oil paints. Much of my paintings are either fully abstract or figurative abstracts. I can draw figures but not as perfectly but perfection does not concern me. What I'm more concerned with is creation itself. "Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it."- Salvador Dali "I am obsessed with the process of creation." - Zdzislaw Beksinski
Yeah, I don't know how many of us have actually put brush to canvas, but it absolutely blows my fuckin' mind that these artists can craft such works from...paint. Cheers! I have achieved versillimilitude.
Guess this is the first time that I thought: OK, maybe there could be something in realism. But, let's be honest, most people like it because the time aspect, they do not think about it (even in hints) like in this episode
As realism artist i think , realism or photorealistic artwork is the real evidence of human perfection. We show our highest desire and fussiness into piece of art. Day by day, hours by hours passed, copying something that already exist with your own unique style. Ask about the artist's meaning behind copying what already exist is really not make sense and impolite. The real meaning is their effort the get there.
Just wanted to clarify that Catherine Murphy (work shown at 8:00 and 10:50) specifically does not work from photographic references, but paints strictly from direct observation, from life. Perhaps the narrator meant to imply this, but it wasn’t clear. As far as I am aware, she is the only contemporary painter shown in the video of whom this is true, so in showing her work it might have been an interesting point to make. brooklynrail.org/2008/06/artseen/catherine-murphy2
The other day I was talking about this with some colleagues. A friend got second place in a tattoo competition in the category of realism and the main argument for not giving him the first place was that he made a digital composition with photographs to represent an idea that was in honor of the statue of Liberty and the city. While the winner simply made a tattoo of a photo of Albert Einstein without modifications. In theory, the concept and the execution of the design should have greater artistic value, but in this case it was not considered complete realism. I consider it absurd, but I do not know what you think or if anyone has had a similar experience?
Robert Bechtle and Richard McClean taught at SF state when i was a student there . They were great teachers and very supportive of the expressionistic painters . The Bechtles I ve seen are very painterly when you actually see them in person. There is impasto in his recent, last 30 years , paintings . Things look a lot tighter when the reproduction is tiny also . Many works are often seen in reproduction and I think that amplifies the marvel some people have for them. They don't notice the subject matter is dull . Dull at least for me . The focus of the contemporary artist featured here tended to go for the hyper realist as oppose to the guys like Sidney Goodman , Arnold Mesches william Beckman or John Valadez where you diffidently see the brushstrokes. I like brushstrokes I love Velazquez ...How about doing figurative expressionist , like the Bay figs , Park , Dienbenkorn ,or east coast guys like Lester johnson , Bob thompson . guys who during the A/E era applied the techniques but still did the figure ?
My favorite painting here is the one at 5:26. It's realistic but not hyper-realistic, and I don't think for a second that it's a photograph. Still, the way the light is reflected in the steel of the telephone booths has a wonderful painterly effect. I can SEE the artist's work. On the other hand, 0:40 is breathtaking as far as the realism. But it might as well be a photograph. The presence of paint is totally gone, and so it's difficult to read this painting as, well, a painting. Not bashing the artist though, it's a beautiful photo. Oops. I mean, painting.
I'm definitely not into hyper-realism paintings (I prefer when you can tell they're paintings but the style makes it *feel* real), but I do appreciate the talent and patience they were able to achieve with the finished products.
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..
To me the real problem is that most people think of the realist approach as the only one worth pursuing. They see a photorealistic painting and just because it makes them go "wow" they automatically label it as good art. And when they come across, let's say, medieval art, cubism or even modern comics (art forms where there is some kind of synthesis or abstraction) they think of those styles as inferior just because in their eyes the authors are not trying to replicate "reality".
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.
I've always been haunted by realism precisely for the "stunt" one gets when seeing a realistic painting first-handedly, your mind tricks you into believing that there is no way this was painted, and for this I sought to learn and deconstruct what seemed to be impossible to achieve, and found out that it is much more than copying what you see--a craft that is, when painting a face you get certain serenity specially on large canvases, you're a god at work, as opposed to the immediate catharsis you get from more abstract styles, realism is indeed a reinvention and a control over what the artist wants you to see
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 love a lot of the works shown in this video, but I still feel as if every reason i like them is rooted in what separates them from a truly perfectly realistic representation.
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
i like how photo realism makes me slowly descend in the uncanny valley, if i made realist art itd be my goal to create a surrealist mood from a realistic image
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
I believe that one reason we love realism is it not easy. We like see people labours efforts in the things we do.
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 .
There is something special in a painting that photography can't ever have.
an opinion
There's obviously a lot of talent and value in photorealistic art; I'm constantly practicing realism for the sake of technique, but I personally could never have the desire to pursue it for actual pieces. I think because I see the real world constantly I try to create more surreal or fantasy works myself, but I understand the value in every art style.
I can't do what everyone else is doing . I'm into symbols, abstract , colors ,shapes
Happy you did this sarah. In online art discussions I often see photorealism looked down upon for being redundant to the photograph. My father is a photorealist, and I'm in art school trying to keep that sort of work going. It's nice to have a video we can point to to defend the work we do! Keep it up
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...
As strange as it may seem, I feel you can't really gain an appreciation for realism until you've seen a sculpture by Duane Henson in person. It's one thing to see the works in a book or on the internet, but when you're close to the real thing and can view it from many angles it just becomes fascinating. The amount of detail seems often greater than what any photograph can provide. You can see the textures and get the feeling that the work will start to move at any moment, yet it stays still and never changes. It's both quite fun yet eerie at the same time.
I don't think it was a Duane Henson sculpture but I went to a Guillermo Del Toro exhibit about his work and his influences and there was a scary realistic sculpture of a larger than life man that really creeped me out.
I saw his work in the early 70’s. It blew me away. So much more than realism.
Realism is incredible and the finest form of art. Saved you some time
I've always struggled with appreciating photorealism because 'who cares, cameras exist'. But I think a lot of it was envy because while I create art, it's mostly sketches because I do not have the attention span, as in, I think about all the other things I could be doing; usually meaning sitting around watching youtube videos lmao
😅😅
My favourite (hyper)realist paintings are Mary Pratt's domestic scenes, especially her jam jars. I saw a video at the National Gallery once about her process, working from slides, and it makes so much sense when you see how much light comes through in her final paintings, that she was studying the images from a backlit medium. She also made a very good case for why she bothers putting so much effort into recreating such simple moments in such a taxing medium, essentially that her experience of the world is that so many fleeting things call out to her to pay rapt attention. And so many of those moments have to do with traditionally feminine spheres such as food preservation which typically don't get the kind of glorification she has given them through her art. A national treasure. I love her.
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!
"Photographic images, movies, tv, magazines etc., are as important a part of our reality as actual phenomena. They strongly affect our perception of actual phenomena." That's a great quote obviously add computers and cellphones for today. I think that's something that most people are are totally unaware of.
So many wonderful things said in this video. Makes me feel more confident and happy about my own explorations into art.
One could think of realism and photorealism as acapella, you could listen to music with instrumental accompaniment, but sometimes its nice to consider the diversity of human voice at recreating the specific timbres of instruments. I would add that realism isn't just showing off methodical or robotic skill, its emphasizing the greater composition of the artwork by making the viewer almost forget about the execution. You can think are clearly about the choices an artist makes about color harmony, linear perspective, and other principles of design if you can be tricked into forgetting you're looking at carefully placed blobs of goo on a canvas.
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.
One of the things I appreciate most about realism is that which clearly separates it from the real. Sarah talked about the changes an artist might make to their subject matter, either by filtering and editing or by the physical elements used to generate the art. That marble trash bag by Nelson took my breath away, because even as the art approaches its source matter, it becomes more and more notably not the thing it approximates. I love the juxtaposition.
Imagine eating a glass sunflower seed. Oh dear.
It's actually made of porcelain. still not less worse
Yes, in either case: YOWCH
7:47 That's... a painting? Someone painted that? With paint? Like, with their hands? How? How?
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.
People can become very judgmental of realism, mostly driven by jealousy. Realist artists share they're unique point of view, creating beauty and even they're own believable reality. I'm tired of people critizicing realism diverting from the real purpose without even educating themselves.
I don't know if you'll see this, but I am totally blown away by your videos and know I will never look at or think about art (and probably the world) the same again. Thank you.
Nicely done, got my mind rolling... and here's where it ended up: realism reminds us that nothing is as real as the real. Especially in our modern times where we are inundated with all these photos and images, with (nearly) each one of them a framed, adulterated, curated, manipulative little slice of all that surrounds us. I concur that it likely is changing the way we actually see and experience things; as we walk around we might have a filter going on in our eyes/minds that is framing things only certain ways, or always seeking out what will be that next perfect photo to post for all the likes on our social media. If so, aren't we missing out? Seeing only a narrow band of what's around us as we focus on those photo-like moments? Could realism be a way of reminding us of the artifice, of turning the lens back on ourselves in a way, and enticing us to see the artifice and to then see both more broadly and deeper? Perhaps to even be more present to all around us? Not asking this rhetorically, I'm now genuinely curious. As I said, got my mind rolling! Which is always a great thing. Thank you! :)
Realism is always my favorite style of painting because it requires more skill, patience, and time to produce a complete product (at least to my summation). More pain, more gain style if you will. Anyway, great video!
I love realism and thats my preferred art style to work in , and with the camera today I can take amazing fotos to use as a reference .
I was really into photorealist art in high school, especially John Salt. I think it's just that tiny, almost unconscious, amount of fuzziness and unreality that adds so much emotion and beauty to his paintings that wouldn't quite be there in the reference photos.
I find hyperrealistic painting fascinating and admirable. Whereas modern abstract paintings leave me with absolutely nothing
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.
I've been working on a Seminary paper on Marcuse's aesthetics, this video gave me some solid points to use for my argument against his rejection of realism and anti art. Thank you!
You're welcome ;)
Any artist can tell you, no matter what style you want to work with, you will have to learn realism first and foremost. You have to know the rules before you can break them.
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.
The case for realism is that there's a certain longing to see a display of skill that surpasses others. We want to see artists test the limits of their knowledge and abilities. These days, modernist art is considered some of the best simply because the artist is expressing themselves and yet leaving the art itself open to infinite interpretations by viewers. This floods the public mind with chaos and does not elevate our understanding of how to live life, or help us understand the truths that transcend generations. Modernist, cubist, and abstract art leave a gaping hole that can only be filled by objective observation and clear meaning in the art itself. That's why the Renaissance can still wow the public today. Its religious as well as some secular themes, and an inherently realist approach to painting human figures was able to take eternal truths and make them much more apparent to anyone who looks at them. That's what the Ghent Altarpiece, the School of Athens, and the Garden of Earthly Delights do. Modernist, abstract, impressionist, and cubist art cannot hope to do that anywhere near as well as realist or classical art.
Wow. Beautifully said.
I was in the middle of painting a very small canvas with as much precision as I could, and I kept thinking, why am I putting myself through this tedious endeavour and why is it that I feel the urge to be so precise with all of my pieces. - maybe I’ll just change my approach to Impressionism and be ‘free’.
Then I jumped on here (probably subconsciously looking for somebody to justify what I may already feel).
Thanks for broadening my perspective. It’s made me realise what I’m trying to say through my work
These are some of the best most concise videos about aspects of art history out there, but goes a little too fast and furiously for most high school students. would love to see future videos slow down a bit.
There's nothing I love more than realism in art. From photography, to films, to paintings, to books, our world is so fantastic and beautifully complex in itself, we don't need to add anything more to it
This was a case well-made for naturalism and realism
slayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
I really like Realism, because you can distinguish the works of art by skill, you can spot mistakes and the lack there of. I know abstract art is also fascinating but there is something raw and admirable about realism the shear skill that is needed is impressive. You as the viewer instinctively know, that it took years to master this art. It is similar to sculptures you stand in front of them and you don’t care about the intention or whatever and just admire the fact that there are humans that can transform a rock into a lifelike statue.
Honestly it is one of the few art forms where I can really hate a piece but still admire it, that is rare.
"Nothing ever is (new)", so true. Such a profound truth so deftly inserted into the script.
for me it more relatable to look at realism art i do realism art because it offers me more emotions and feelings
Sometimes art is also about the process. For me when I decide to create something photorealistic it is also about the process of creating. I think people who don't appreciate photorealism ignore that. They're very quick to talk about the process for Jackson Pollock, etc....but they never really think about how beautiful the process is for someone who is capturing the beautiful light, color and textures of the world around us. Sometimes just sitting and capturing something truly as it it and also as I see it (because honestly photorealism isn't always 100% as it is...its through the our eyes) is just as (if not more) rewarding as the final piece.
I really like photorealist, hyperrealist, ultra realist, and realist painting. But my favorite is impressionist painting, especially watercolor, that's fairly realistic. I don't like the abstract, modernist, or minimalist stuff. (Not sure if I'm using the correct terminology.) The technical expertise involved in realist and impressionist painting is, for me, a joy to contemplate, and the paintings are a joy to look at. I don't feel the same wonderment and joy when I look at, say, a Pollock painting as I do when I look at, say, a Vermeer or Sargent painting. But my hat is off to those who are able to appreciate the abstract stuff. Anyway, yeah, go realism. Interesting video. Thanks and thumbs up.
"Photographs, as we well know, crop, omit, and mislead." You could make an entire video just on this one statement. This is especially true with the corporate news media, which has turned into a propaganda machine.
This is the channel i'm the proudest of being a patron of.
i never saw the point of realism in our age with our photographic technology until now! nice video!!
One thing that distinguishes realistic paintings from photographs is size: paintings are generally much bigger than photographs. It is possible to make large photographs, but not common. It is very challenging to process very large sheets of photographic paper in the required chemical baths. I used to say that the common 8" x 10" was too small, but, have you ever tried to get a 16" x 20" or larger piece of paper into a tray of developer solution without streaking caused by uneven development? Digital photography and printers make it much easier to make very large photographs, which are now being produced as "art".
There has long been a debate whether photography could be considered "art" at all. Some of the same arguments could be turned against realistic paintings, the mere representation of objects. Illustration is often considered to not be "art", even though it may display a high level of skill, effort and patience. There was a time when art was produced in guilds, workshops, studios. Often it was not signed by any artist, sometimes it was produced under the direction of a master by journeymen, same as furniture or clocks would be made. It was an economic activity, not "art".
Very detailed and exact scale models of airplanes, ships, cars, buildings, railroads are often called "art". These are effectively 3D realism, a form of sculpture. See also, doll and puppet making.
"Primitive" people make cultural objects that are considered "art"; polychrome clay pots, dance masks, katsina dolls or other objects of daily use. They may not have been intended to fulfill the role of "art" in the originating society, but they are bought, collected and displayed as "art" in ours.
SFMOMA had a show of Danish Modern furniture. These were not photographs or paintings, they were actual pieces of furniture. Can't get much more realistic than the object itself.
We admire art that represents magnificent or beautiful scenes in nature. Shouldn't we consider the original scene to be art? It certainly has the original magnificence and beauty.
Art is related to artifact; something made by humans.
Art has many functions. Most art is used purely for decoration. People put paintings on the wall, pots on the mantle piece, jewelry on the hand purely for decoration. The vast majority of art pieces have nothing whatsoever to do with academic discussions of "art". In fact, most art is made by amateurs. Just look at how many art students are taking art classes for purely recreational purposes.
Classifying objects as "art" or not "art" is pretty much a waste of time. Anything that somebody makes and put out for us to see is art. It is more fruitful to consider the intent or function of the piece. What does it do, what does it tell us, what was the intent, what does it express, how does it work? There are many forms of art; painting, sculpture, literature, theater, pottery, jewelry, puppetry, and so on. Each genre has its special features and each piece must be appreciated individually.
Art has become so academicized that an artist can't just produce art; the artist must have a theory, must write a manifesto, must belong to a school, must take a stance, must defend a position. All this yapping is an irrelevant distraction from the work.
you are a good source in regard to the different styles in nectar chrome slide, Kodachrome and their enhancements there is so much more to learn to extract all these different pieces of knowledge to create something old and new in different directions, thank you.
I’ve always had a dislike for photorealistic paintings, mostly because people have been conditioned to value art, and even their own skill level, on how much like real life the piece is. People will see a perfect realistic painting and think it’s absolutely amazing, and then look at a less realistic piece, but with so such substance and meaning behind it, and think it’s inferior. Is artistic criticism based solely on the image, and not the feelings and emotions it’s trying to convey? I’m really not sure myself. When people ask what style I do, I usually reply: “as realistic as I can do and then it turns out like a child drew it.” And I mostly do that because I definitely envy those who can do realism. I’ll sit in my art class and see all these artists doing super realistic stuff, and then I end up beating myself down and telling myself I don’t belong there. Is art just the act of making something look as much like the real thing as possible? Or is it more?
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
THE THING I REQUESTED IN THE CASE FOR ABSTRACTION VIDEO!!!!!!!! Whether or not you actually saw my request, THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO!
Well done! Touched deep ideas on naturalism, realism, and even idealism (I think) in short period of time with no jargons. Thanks!
I love The Art Assignment and am always happy when a new video gets released.
And an even happier when a piece from my local art museum is included. (This time Betty by Gerhard Richter as part of the St Louis Art Museums collection. It is a grest piece and is made even better by the juxtaposition of where the museum has hung it. It is surrounded by modern art which all of the people I've taken, respond to as 'I can do that'... then ask why a photograph is hanging next to these other pieces? To which I point out it is a painting. Which immediately gets them interested and looking closer.
Always a womderful experience. If you are ever in the area, highly recommend!)
While many argue that realistic paintings simply copy reality and that makes them uninteresting, I would like to disagree. I think that they still represent the unique point of view of their artists since everyone sees reality differently. Such POV may not reflect on the colors they used or the strokes on which they built the artwork, but the subjects they chose to focus on and how they chose to focus on them still say something. They are never empty. That, aside from the technical mastery, makes them still worthy of interest and recognition.
When most people think of realism, they only think of photorealism, which is kind of irritating for people who adore the other kinds of realism.
That image of Matisse and Zita really grabbed me. I don't know much about the artist or art for that matter (although I do art all the time) but that image sent me on a journey for hours just reading about Matisse and his models. Zita apparently wasn't with him for long but many others were and it was a great story of a great artist and very tormented man.
As someone who is interested in realism i usually mix other elements with realism such as adding interesting colors or shapes into a otherwise hyper realistic piece
0:41 oh wow (painting)
3:16 the desire to depict life itself [in 3 dimensions)
Well made, well narrated, very informative. Thank you for showing me Idelle Weber, Don Eddy and Clive Head. I feel like I always attempted to do something in them, capturing the best I could random objects just as they are, without caring for composition or subject, of course never achieving that level. Now I know whom I tried to imitate.
This channel has had a profound effect on my life and I miss it very much. Can anyone suggest some other channels like it?
I REALLY love "The Case For" series, mainly because I think it's equal parts informative and provocative, which means that it approaches the subject with just the right amount of information for you to feel the urge to learn more, and that surely is Art. Anyways, please, keep up with this series and also the excellent work.
P.S.: Do "The Case For Comics"!
I'm negatively biased of realism or most of it is because of envy and jealousy. I do art but not in such of really into realism. Here, in our country, most of the artists in social media do realism, or even hyper realistic. Yeah, I'm envied their skill. Then I realized, after watching this video, I somehow admire the realism art shown from this video. I distinguished why I hate the realism arts that I see in social media; it is the subject. Most realism social media arts are 'wow' because they made so-much-realistic art of a very famous celebrity, or a commission of a very realistic pencil sketch of their gf/bf, or whatever, and they gain so many likes. From the realism arts shown from the video, just from its particular subjects I could feel the mood, the nostalgia, the atmosphere, the time, the disgust, the curiosity, the life. These artists are like Gustave Courbet, but 50s, 60s, and so on. I remembered this woman photographer named Vivian Maier and she took a photograph of life and time itself. I now admire those kinds of particular realists.
This is one of my favorite series, thank you so much!
I've read some of the comments and for some reason the discussion seems to center around the pros and cons of photorealism. Realism is not photorealism.
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.
As a photographer, I struggle with the imbalance. A painted version of a photograph is considered ART, but a photograph of a painting is mere reproduction.
Well you had to put some craft into painting
Excellent video on realism in photography...thanks
This is one of the most enlightening videos I have seen on RUclips. Thanks for sharing it!
your right
This is great! Can we also have a video about modern representational realists. Like Quang Ho, Jeremy Lipking, Rosmary Frantzen, David Kassan, and the like?
I can somewhat agree when it comes to photography. Sure, it’s able to capture the actual moment in our life. But if you’re able to actually paint the moment in that moment right now. Is absolutely amazing, some may say it takes a lot of time. But that’s essentially the point of painting in realism or sculpturing. It takes time to create and achieve realism as you would see it in real life. Many would photograph moments you wouldn’t want to forget, but for those who take time to paint or sculpt those moments. Is fantastic, you can achieve that realism on a 2D surface. Or if you sculpt, you’re able to create 3D realism, which I find the most fascinating. Able to achieve realism, that you can actually see in real life, will always astonish us even in today’s world.
I am eternally grateful this channel exists
I love the comic effect photorealist paintings have. Imo it kind of enhances reality and just like impressionism gives it a dreamy vibe. I really don't know why people reject comic art as a form of art..
Your videos are so great! Thank's for existing ❤
The 70s: the photograph technicolor .85 bibbidy boop bop photography is simply outstanding!
The 2000s the photo is cool!
These videos are brilliantly done! Rock on, you've definitely got my vote!
Maybe it's not pertinent but there's also the factor of galleries. Looking at a picture in a gallery next to a realistic painting in a gallery is probably going to be more impactful (I would think).
At art college reality was an issue of the day. I visited New York in 1980 and seen the artists at Sea cliff who was doing photorealism. In England it was conceptual art, so there was a division. Realism is an effort to portray something seen and yet if it was magnified, then it looked more abstract and to be exact abstracted from reality. There is still a quest to find a visual language that is possible by the artist, but it can change with time.
I was under the impression that Realism was referring to the technique (i.e. realistic results) while Naturalism was referring to the context (i.e. portraying real-life scenes and faces, not idealistic). Love your videos! :)
vice versa
Realism is the ultimate goal
The problem is we are distracted with all the external and don't look to the internal or are true divinity.
I'm personally a pretty big fan of social realism. Stories that are about like a bus driver or something that aren't very exciting and just chronicle the every day life that you might be very familiar with. One of my favorite poets is Dan Turell and a lot of his songs and poems are just about every day life, in fact one of his songs is named "I like the every day". It's also funny how this kinda has reemerged in the form of the simulator game.
My painting have alot of inspiration from Warhol and surrealist artists. My art ( at least how I think to describe it) is a deco surrealist portrayal of everyday life. If I tried to make a photorealistic painting I'd go mad.
Waiting for this one!! ❤️❤️
Some of those oil paintings looked so real, you could have passed them off as photographs. Some of them, I could see they were paintings after looking for a while but some of them, just wow.
I LOVED THIS EPISODE!!!! THiS WAS SUCH AN INTERESTING THING TO WATCH!!!!
Hello! Would it be possible for you to discuss whether there is a limit to being 'too experimental'? I've been thinking about this in a musical sense, as some people call certain types of music 'noise', while there is something as noise music. Is there an equivalant in art? (Feel free to discuss with me comment section, I'm in an artsy mood)
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 channel should do a case for Simon stalenhag
Love this channel so much❤️❤️
Say whatever you want, photorealism and hyperrealism for me are best styles in the Art world! Again, it is my taste only, but I also strongly disagree with the ones who say how they don't have a message, or are not "profound".. That's just bullshit, many hyperrealistic works are not only fun or technically astonishing, but they actually make me to think whenever I see them. They certainly have a message and purpose! Photorealism and Hyperrealism are my favorite art movements, and best art. Now I repeat, it is my opinion only, so if you disagree, don't bother yourself and myself in a debate that can needlessly turn into an argument.
I would just like to add my opinion to this controversy, I do think that realism is a real art style, for many people they use art as a tool to relax, and for others it’s their job. I think we should just appreciate all the talent and just admire the work.
Great defense of Realism's art work content's worth.
Thanks a lot for a very articulated and high quality analysis of the subject! I learned a lot!
But a brief caveat about the fact that very sophisticated content can be found in rudimentary technique art works would have been nice.
Such are the works by the artist Stik, for instance.
I just found your channel. Wondeful content. Cheers! from one working artist to another. your content is Truly appreciated.
I have seen works from the 18th and 19th century at the museum here in Bentonville called Crystal Bridges and I must say they are impressive. But for me however, my interest lies in styles like surrealism, fauvism and German expressionism, and abstract styles like cubism, futurism and the works of Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky.
I've adopted painting as a hobby since of March of last and recently got two sets of oil paints. Much of my paintings are either fully abstract or figurative abstracts. I can draw figures but not as perfectly but perfection does not concern me. What I'm more concerned with is creation itself.
"Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it."- Salvador Dali
"I am obsessed with the process of creation." - Zdzislaw Beksinski
Yeah, I don't know how many of us have actually put brush to canvas, but it absolutely blows my fuckin' mind that these artists can craft such works from...paint. Cheers! I have achieved versillimilitude.
Guess this is the first time that I thought: OK, maybe there could be something in realism. But, let's be honest, most people like it because the time aspect, they do not think about it (even in hints) like in this episode
Amazing, thank you
Absolutely love the work.
I don't
such a great channel
If they haven't already done a video on appreciation of art, could they do one please?
I know artists who are stuck in realism because thats what many artists learn is good art. Basically the more difficult to produce, the better it is
Agree.
As realism artist i think , realism or photorealistic artwork is the real evidence of human perfection. We show our highest desire and fussiness into piece of art. Day by day, hours by hours passed, copying something that already exist with your own unique style. Ask about the artist's meaning behind copying what already exist is really not make sense and impolite. The real meaning is their effort the get there.
fantastic video. very informative.
Love your channel, for realism.
BAHAHAHAHA75rtnftrfugmh
"A picture is something that requires as much knavery, trickery and deceit as the perpetration of a crime." -- Degas
Just wanted to clarify that Catherine Murphy (work shown at 8:00 and 10:50) specifically does not work from photographic references, but paints strictly from direct observation, from life. Perhaps the narrator meant to imply this, but it wasn’t clear. As far as I am aware, she is the only contemporary painter shown in the video of whom this is true, so in showing her work it might have been an interesting point to make. brooklynrail.org/2008/06/artseen/catherine-murphy2
The other day I was talking about this with some colleagues. A friend got second place in a tattoo competition in the category of realism and the main argument for not giving him the first place was that he made a digital composition with photographs to represent an idea that was in honor of the statue of Liberty and the city. While the winner simply made a tattoo of a photo of Albert Einstein without modifications. In theory, the concept and the execution of the design should have greater artistic value, but in this case it was not considered complete realism. I consider it absurd, but I do not know what you think or if anyone has had a similar experience?
Robert Bechtle and Richard McClean taught at SF state when i was a student there . They were great teachers and very supportive of the expressionistic painters . The Bechtles I ve seen are very painterly when you actually see them in person. There is impasto in his recent, last 30 years , paintings . Things look a lot tighter when the reproduction is tiny also . Many works are often seen in reproduction and I think that amplifies the marvel some people have for them. They don't notice the subject matter is dull . Dull at least for me . The focus of the contemporary artist featured here tended to go for the hyper realist as oppose to the guys like Sidney Goodman , Arnold Mesches william Beckman or John Valadez where you diffidently see the brushstrokes. I like brushstrokes I love Velazquez ...How about doing figurative expressionist , like the Bay figs , Park , Dienbenkorn ,or east coast guys like Lester johnson , Bob thompson . guys who during the A/E era applied the techniques but still did the figure ?
My favorite painting here is the one at 5:26. It's realistic but not hyper-realistic, and I don't think for a second that it's a photograph. Still, the way the light is reflected in the steel of the telephone booths has a wonderful painterly effect. I can SEE the artist's work. On the other hand, 0:40 is breathtaking as far as the realism. But it might as well be a photograph. The presence of paint is totally gone, and so it's difficult to read this painting as, well, a painting. Not bashing the artist though, it's a beautiful photo. Oops. I mean, painting.