Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Craft or art ?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
There has been another interesting discussion in the thread of this weeks featured artists and the discussions about Butt remind me of a debate art one of our Art clubs. It went like this:
In painting terms a craftsman is someone seeks to master their tools and materials. An artist is someone who not only seeks to master their tools and materials but also applies skills in interpreting subject matter, colours, shapes and their positioning to obtain an interpretation.
In the case of photorealism in art could the 'artist' fall into the first category and not the second? I'm not offering an opinion either way but it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others.
Posted
An interesting topic, Michael. I do prefer art that reflects something of the artist’s personality and individual style. When a painting is photorealistic, even though the composition might be very creative, you don’t get a sense of the artist’s own individuality and perhaps it then becomes more of a technical rather than an artistic skill, even though you might really like and appreciate the skill in the painting?
What was the outcome of the debate at your art club?
Edited
by Jenny Harris
Posted
There was no defitive outcome with most accepting thal a piece of art with no creativity would be hard to find. Perhaps you could equate it to a set of scales (down to minus 5 one side and plus 5 the other) - with photorealism depicting say an an actual scene without any variation with a score of -5 and a pure abstract with a score of +5; everything else being a balance between the two - I guess most paintings we see in the gallery fall somewhere round about 0. Not sure if I've expressed that very well but I hope you get the drift.
Posted
Mastering - to the extent we can - the tools of the trade is necessary, and of course there's a craft element in any good painting: it wouldn't work if there weren't. I don't think that photorealism has to be all about craft and no more, though - there's a painter named Michael James Smith; often on YouTube, Patreon, has his own website. I have heard the criticism of him that he is all craft and no art, because he has a repertoire of techniques that Alan Bickley would call "painting every leaf". Sometimes, watching him (and I find his methods and work fascinating) you just want him to let go and let rip - it's a very careful, deliberate set of techniques.
I don't want to paint his way - but I do like his work (that useful word, 'like' - doesn't commit one to any further analysis!). I'd much rather live with a Michael James Smith than with a Bob Ross - an odious comparison if you like, but Smith has draughtsmanship skills that Ross almost wholly lacked, plus a far better judgement of colour. It could be thought that Smith works to a photorealistic formula, and to some extent that's true: one's more aware of the skill and craft at first viewing than of the artistic impression - the paintings are pleasing (and they sell, I'm sure) but one's aware that Michael is no J M W Turner.
In short - I don't think I'm going to get anywhere nearer to an answer than Michael Edwards or his chums! I'd rather have a Wesson, or a Seago, than any photorealist painter whose work I've ever seen, because I've no hesitation in saying THAT'S art - I need marvel at their technique only because I try to be an artist myself, and want to know how they did it! If I were not a painter myself, I think I'd just take pleasure in the work in front of me; I think that photorealism CAN block out the art element and have one concentrating too much on the craft - but it still takes artistic passion to create it - or why would you?
We've all heard people say of a painting "Ooh, it's just like a photograph!" (and wanted to kill them...): the comment is usually nonsense, but just now and then, I see paintings that are indeed just like photographs - accurate, cold, meticulous, and to me as dead as five year old yeast.... nothing there: just immaculate technique. I'm in NO danger of producing paintings like that, because I simply haven't GOT immaculate technique: but that, I think, is where craft has taken over - when I can't see what possible pleasure the artist gained from the physical act of painting, and look in vain for any sense of vision, urgency, expressiveness, or character.
Posted
They may not print their personality or creativity into their painting but you can tell a lot about the artist by what you don't see in this style of photorealism painting. I think they strive to perfect the use of their tools and photorealism is difficult to achieve. This tells me, they may have tried many styles to actually reach this point. It's not about stamping their personality all over their painting, it's about purity of seeing what is in front of you. That's my take anyway.
Posted
The artists who do photorealistic paints surly must get pleasure from what they produce or as Robert implies why bother.
I’m sure it the pleasures of getting it to look so real that dies it for them where as we enjoyed out representation of what we see and gain pleasure from it looking like a painting. It’s very difficult to see what they gain simply because we cannot see it through their eyes and thoughts. The example below are technically brilliant and I like to see the work but don’t particularly like it , I suppose I’m fascinated as to how it’s done . It would be nice to have the skills to do such work if I wanted too the if being a big word . 
Posted
As ever in art, all things are down to personal choices. Photorealism IS art. No question in my mind. Of course there's craft involved too, as said elsewhere. When looking at a photorealistic painting the question for me is the same for any kind of Art...do I like the painting...not do I like the genre/medium/et al. The art on the other thread that prompted this was good, but barring one or two paintings, did not appeal to me on a personal level. The same goes for some of my favorite artists like Manet, Renoir, Tamara De Lempicka...oh...and Beryl Cook while we're at it.
Posted
I tend to do the same Lew if I like a picture I like it no matter how it was produced . I recently had a discussion with a neighbour who was knocking digital art , as I pointed out to him you still need to have a understanding of painting etc and artistic skill no matter what you use. A few years ago I was using a pyrography tool to create a landscape on a block of oak, someone’s said that I should do a proper drawing , he meant with a pen etc. i completed the drawing and he was quite impressed as I pointed out I had drawn it but with a hot pen nib. It leads on to other arguments over what is art is a mural a paining or is it just a decorative wall, I know it sounds silly but I have had that discussion before now . It comes down to the individual and what they perceive as art , how many time have you heard it’s good but not real art, I digress from photorealistic artwork that personally think is art .
Posted
Agree that you can enjoy and appreciate photorealistic work just as much as work which reflects an artist’s individual style - I think the question Michael raised was whether it should be viewed as a skill on a more technical level. I believe we’ve got Kelvin Okafor on the list of artists to look at later and work doesn’t come more photorealistic than his. He has been quoted as saying that as a child he was fascinated by what could be achieved with pencils and was inspired to continue to explore the technical use of a pencil, and that the hundreds of hours he spends on his portraits become a form of meditation. His portrait of John Lennon is absolutely stunning.
Edited
by Jenny Harris
Posted
I aim for photorealism, even though I haven’t achieved it yet. Am I an artist or a craftsman? Not overly fussed what you call me really, I’m happy doing what I do and that’ll do me. I do notice that a good number of ‘artists’ tend to see the work of ‘craftspeople’ (photorealists) as worthless, but not the reverse. Again, not overly fussed if photorealism makes you projectile vomit, plenty of people dig it.
Posted
To me, the black and white pictures posted above look like photos, and whilst I admire the skill in getting the painting or drawing to look EXACTLY like a photo, I do question if it is worth the effort (because viewers would think they are photos).
Because I initially think they are photos, I am not any more impressed that they are drawings / paintings.
Your paintings, Anthony, I can tell are paintings straight away. I think you have the balance right (I.e. not SO photorealistic that they are mistaken for photos).
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2