Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Photorealism - what do we mean by this?
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 are many artists who work in a fairly realistic style whose work I greatly admire. On this site, the still lifes of Petra Palmeri, the marine scenes of Lesley Dabson, and the portraits of Timothy holmes come immediately to mind. But the difference between their work and the work of the photorealists is that they all put something of themselves into their work and this is where the difference lies. I do recognise the tremendous kills of those who can paint in a photorealistic style - it's something I can't do - but although they may achieve ten out of ten for their skill and technique it seems to me that they score at the other end of the scale for artistic interpretation and input. As a result their work tends to have a lack of feeling, soul, or even excitement. Okay, many may disagree with what I've said so far but let me really set the cat among the pidgeons by suggesting that true photorealist work comes under the umbrella of the skilled craftsman rather than the umbrella of the artist.So my comments are a bit sweeping and it all depends on your interpretation of the word photorealism. How accurate does a work have to be to be described thus. What if the actual content is painted in a 'photorealist' style but, in the name of compostion, trees have been moved, building outlines changed, colours altered etc etc. What might have been described as photorealism has now become realism based on artistic interpretation (or is it the other way round?). What do we really mean by photorealism? How many paintings described as photorealistic are, in fact, far from that. Should we drop the 'photo' bit entirely and just talk about realism? What about the work of Bernard, Goings, Fazio, Baeder etc. How true to the original subjects are their works?
Perhaps we should just forget about it and go on enjoying the kind of work which we all enjoy as individuals.
Posted
When someone looks at my painting and says "its just like a photograph" that is photo realism , but only in the mind of the viewer and they are unaware of the sinking feeeling they are causing me by what they think is praise. I really dont like windows with right angle corners or every brick shown and i dont paint like that but people see it like that somehow.....Syd
Posted
but although they may achieve ten out of ten for their skill and technique it seems to me that they score at the other end of the scale for artistic interpretation and input. As a result their work tends to have a lack of feeling, soul, or even excitement.That's my feeling of it, in a nutshell. Superb skills but no feeling Not always - I've seen some phtoreal acryilics of flowers that you'd think you could reach out and touch and smell... and that takes LOVE of the flowers to do that But photoreal landscapes and streets, buildings, farms.. not for me. Mind you, they are still "art"... just art I'm not keen on. The other extreme is also not my pleasure - A wobbly pink line intersecting a hard edged blue line = "The interplay of male and female" = "Meh" to me.
Posted
That's what i mean - they are TOO realistic, they might as well be photographs.
Lot's of talent but no "feel".
http://media.creativebloq.futurecdn.net/sites/creativebloq.com/files/images/2015/07/DiegoFazio_charcoalpencil.jpg
(it won't post as an image)
Just too realistic for my taste.
Edited
by DippyDipper
Posted
We probably all know the photorealist self-portrait by Chuck Close; and we'll all have our view of it. I've wondered in the past if I could do the same thing - I couldn't at the moment, because of the cataract, but could I ever have done it? I think - maybe. Working on a life-size scale or bigger, with very sharp pencils, a clean putty rubber, and plenty of time. Whether anyone would have thanked me for it is something else again.
My point is, I suppose, that it's something I might have done just to see if I could - but it's not something I'd want to do, nor does it much interest me except: well, it's an arresting image. I can see it in my mind's eye now, as I can see the Mona Lisa, or Picasso's Weeping Woman (which certainly isn't photo-realistic).
What do I conclude from this? D'you know, I haven't a solitary clue! Except - I think that some art works, and some doesn't; some makes an impact, some leaves you indifferent, or bored, or with the sense that you've seen it all before. And I don't think, really, that photorealism is any different - when it works it's great, when it doesn't it's soulless.
And I agree with Syd - tell me my work is "just like a photograph" and my reaction is not one of gratitude.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I also think that part of the issue is that ART, itself, is a thing that can't ALL be loved by ALL.
And just becasue it's art doesn't mean if HAS to be loved by all
I's not a failing in either the art or the viewer - it's just personal values and opinions.
If I had turned left 40 years ago instead of right, I'd not have tripped over a trap and had my leg cut in half at the knee - from then on my entire life would have been different and I might be a 50 year old NOW who adores photo-realistic art. I might also be a vet or a drunk on the street...
We are what we are at this moment - with all our values, morals, likes and dislikes.. neither right nor wrong... they just ARE.
Posted
<div>A very interesting post Michael. When I started painting I tried to produce an exact copy of the photo, including, of course the colours with my husband hanging over my shoulder "advising" me that I had not got it exact. I am still putting some of these earlier works on my gallery. So now I am evolving and looking for something different. And looking back at these paintings, some of them lack my interpretation or if you will, Soul. I admire realism but find I don't want to do that now because I have a camera for that. I'm looking for excitement, bold textures, a sense of humour - in fact anything that shouts "ADELE". By the way, what is the difference between "photorealism" and " hyperphotorealism"? Can you be more realistic then photorealism?</div>
Posted
I had a short discussion on this topic with a gallery owner yesterday.
She likes photorealism. She also likes my "textured" paintings (she is going to show one or two :-D - alongside some more photorealistic pieces!).
I think that I could paint in that style, but I choose not to. Because, to me, there is no point in doing it. To her, the point was the sheer skill involved, and yes, it is impressive. And no doubt it sells. She did back down slightly and said that she liked to be able to see it was a painting at close range. She expressed the opinion that there was even more skill in doing that, because of course the artist is close when painting (assuming that they don't paint with a very long brush, I suppose).
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2