Do Artists See Things as They Really Are?

There is no one single true reality. Each and every one of us interprets the world through our physical, mental and cultural filters that we accumulate. There are only agreed upon definitions within a certain culture as to what characteristics make up , say, an elephant or a blue sky with cumulus clouds. An atist gives their interpretation of an object or situatioon. We don't expect all writers to write the same book, so why should visual artists paint the same barn, horse, portrait,etc.?

Everything's an interpretation I reckon; everything in front of you is open to how you want to present it. The same argument applies whether it's music on a page, a script or a landscape.

Getting aside from the issue of nothing is ever seen as it really it - becasue it's all subjective; individual response based on brain chemistry, genetics. upbringing... I think it's not really correct - but valid. "No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did he would cease to be an artist." - aside from the bit above, we all can see things the way they are, artists just interpret them differently, see patterns and colours more obviously. we can auto-ignore fluff and detritus and not paint them. Other people just see them and ignore them... artists see them and decide. Perhaps a better wording might be something like: "If artists had to see things as they were, they'd stop being artists" -- but then I also contend that if humans had to see things as they were we'd have a LOT more suicides! Like Dr Who:

“You forgot the last time. You remembered the fear and you put it into fairy stories. It’s the human superpower, forgetting. If you remembered how things felt, you’d have stopped having wars and stopped having babies.”

"there is no one reality" Yes DougB you have put your finger on it, a good response from all of you, all valid. I think Oscar has begged the question nicely when he refers to "No great artist" and also "as they really are", we then come to the point that people who look at paintings have their own way of seeing and presumably they use that to choose their favourite painters and paintings. Thanks again Michael for a teasing discussion. John

But what about Shroedinger's cat? Unless you see something, it is not there. There is no evidence that the see things the same. We have no idea if the experience of red or blue is the same for all people. As the ancient Greeks did not have a word for blue, then we can only assume that generally we do see things differently (leaving colour-blindness aside). What makes a great artist is a different story. Often hard work and discipline - mastering the techniques is a crucial part. Have something to say about the subject might have something else to do with it. Might have something to say about this.

How relevant this is going to be I don't know (Oscar was a great one for the epigrams, but he was also an infernal tease - he knew that the meaning in his words was opaque enough to have people arguing about them down the centuries, and he loved it). But anyway: I looked in on a tutoring session in watercolour some time ago now; the tutor was trying to tell one lady - who was beginning to turn quite mulish - to "use some purple in your tree shadows": "But I can't SEE any purple in the ********** shadows!" she said. I don't know if that situation was ever resolved. But I do know that I can't see purple in shadows either - but sometimes use a touch of purple to indicate them: not because I can see it, but because I know it'll produce a particular effect in the painting; or because it's a complementary colour, although that's really saying much the same thing. So if I put it in, it's for the sake of the painting - not because I could see it in reality. I didn't use to do this: I've graduated over many years from using black, to Payne's Grey, to browns, to mixes of all of these, to using complementaries - and I still have trouble finding a shadow colour that looks like a shadow and not a smear of paint. Oddly enough, it's got a bit easier as my eyesight has deteriorated - to the extent I worry a bit when having to try new specs (which I currently need); if clean, sharp vision is restored, I know from experience I get a bit sharper in my painting, and I'm not sure I'm all that happy with the results, at least until I adapt. It was the great Rolf Harris - whatever happened to him?* - who said he often took his glasses off when painting. This would be a mistake for me, because if I did that I wouldn't see anything other than a blur, but there was a point in the comment: replicating reality, even assuming we could all see it as such, is beyond our power. So we paint impressions, abstractions - or most of us do. I saw a painting yesterday - on Facebook (one of the few good reasons for going to Facebook is that if you befriend other artists you'll see a lot of new work). It was much praised, and it was indeed brilliant - an acrylic painting of Chinese porcelain, cups, plates, bowls. Beautifully done - but it left me as cold as the proverbial witch's nipple. It was real, and yet not real - accomplished with huge skill, and yet - I didn't see the point, and wondered if this was just jealousy on my part because I'm sure I couldn't do it myself. Don't think it was though, really - and I don't know if any of this is of the least relevance to the original question, but perhaps that's a matter of perception too. (* You are not to take this question seriously.)

To a great extent, and I am talking about myself here, but I tend to see a subject or view and paint what I know will work, or perhaps what I have been taught or read, rather than what I actually see. This is the reason that I am a painter and not a photographer. To take Robert's shadow example, I know that by adding let's say purple and a touch of alizarin crimson to my base colour will give me a strong shadow, but by looking purely at the scene I would probably find it difficult to create that combination straight off without my prior knowledge of colour mixing. I try and keep my work simple and without creating complications, I will add points of interest to a work or equally I will remove objects that I feel don't help, simple as that, it's called ART.