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 2 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
The "skill" argument is interesting, especially since according to Serota prattling on about the Young British Artists (as they then were) we were in the "post skills generation". Although I think that had more to do with Serota than any artist - I've had my first pre-prandial drink: brings out the beast in me....
Of course there's enormous skill in photo-realism, but there's also something else, and that's a) obsession, b) time. In short, I think any competent artist could do it, if they just took the time required - it's just that on the whole most of us would choose not to. But, I have intimated before - I don't think it matters: do what you want and enjoy it. Nice if you can then get someone to buy it, but I've gone beyond the stage at which I much care if I'm commercial or not, and wouldn't want to paint just to sell pictures.
Which isn't, to refer to another discussion, very "professional" of me, but then, what the heck - I started painting because I enjoyed it, and if at the other end of my career I'm still doing much the same, well - that's a plus; even if the bank manager might quibble.
Opinions change so much, though - once upon a time, detail was all; then we had anything but; now some yearn for detail again; and photo-realism depended rather obviously on the advent of the camera. Well, let's just paint as we wish, maybe? So long as the picture works, and we respond to it, I simply don't care what genre it fits, if any.
http://www.isleofwightlandscapes.net
http://www.wightpaint.blogspot.co.uk
Posted
I don't think it matters: do what you want and enjoy it. Nice if you can then get someone to buy it, but I've gone beyond the stage at which I much care if I'm commercial or not, and wouldn't want to paint just to sell pictures.I agree there, especially that last bit -- I've SEEN what some people are buying and I'd rather hang up my ink pots than paint that drek. I paint what appeals to ME...
Posted
I have had a booth at an exhibition only yesterday where lots of people came by to ask if my paintings were photographs. Now I prefer to take that as a compliment as on closer inspection they were able to see they were paintings. I do not think my work is photorealism even though it is very time consuming and I am a stickler for detail. Here is a brief report with more to come tomorrow when the show will have ended
https://landscapeartblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/exhibition-at-a-castle/
Posted
I have been to many galleries and seen so many well-detailed paintings and the perfect proportion, perspective and pinpoint accuracy, but they lack feeling. If one is happy doing that type of work then go ahead and do it, but in my view what is the point? Painting, in my opinion, is about experimenting with tone, colour, form and technique and being expressive. Go to the Search Painters Online search engine in the top right-hand corner and key in Martina Furlong and look at her paintings. They have great texture, depth and feel and her paintings are doing what good paintings should do.
Posted
Don't agree with you entirely artin. It is doing what good paintings should do, in your opinion! Good art, in my opinion, is that which pleases the onlooker, be it abstract, realism, printing, in fact any type of mark making (and I hate that modern expression). Also there have been some very good needlecrafting art pieces on this site. Now I had very definite views of what styles I liked or didn't like in art before I came onto this site. My eyes have been opened. I don't judge on the style, but on the finished art piece. Whether realism is an art or craft, as discussed previously here, it doesn't matter. The fact is that every one of the artists here is passionate about their art and it is no less art than another piece. People will notice on the gallery that I comment on an awful lot of paintings - that is because I simply enjoy them, from the complete amateur who may be struggling, to the professional. I don't deride anything, even if it is not to my taste. I also admit that I don't understand abstract works, but that doesn't stop me from sometimes appreciating the colours or patterns formed.
Posted
I have not and never will have the skill to paint to the standard of what people call photorealism and i do not know if I would want to, but if I had that kind of skill my attitude may change, who Knows? . I think one of the problems with art is that there are some very skillfull artists who do create very detailed work that is close to but not quite photorealistic, but when viewed by others, the viewers brain does what all human brains do, it puts in that little extra it knows what should be there, so what was a realistic painting becomes photorealistic quite often. Did Turner say somthing like 'I paint what I see, not what I know is there'.
Certainly as a person who has spent a lot of my life in the hills and mountains I do not like to see highly detailed paintings of mountains because that is not what is see when I am out there. But the beauty of art is that everyone is different and should be allowed to be so.
Posted
I have recently been told that my work falls under photorealism due to my attention to detail. I have never though of this as to me they are portraits but with other elements added. Which I feel adds soul and something else to the painting, which has not been captured by the camera. I have taken recent comments on my work as massive compliments and feel rather humbled too.
I do what I do, I paint what I see - so if it looks real is that right or wrong? To me is it right.
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2