Photo Realism and Human Photocopiers...

[Antlers]

What do you think of people who are into painting/drawing pieces that are so realistic, they might have well just taken a photo? Sure, they can draw or paint really well, and must have excellent observational skills, but what about imagination and creativity?

In the Baroque era, those who painted still lives or -directly- from models (without idealizing them) were not seen as "high artists", because all they did was replicate what they saw in front of them onto the canvas, without adding anything of their own. Now, I am in no way saying that today's artists are on the same level as Baroque masters such as Caravaggio, but the viewpoint of the time is interesting to consider.

I personally dislike (modern) photorealism. It holds no intrigue, wonder, or delight for me.

What are your thoughts?

>>>Sorry, this topic is a little scanty and I should have written more, but I just wanted to get this off my mind and open it up to discussion...<<<

[Tenko72]

I'm not very fond of photorealism either, but I know it takes skill. It's just a matter of taste what's liked or disliked. I really love hyperrealism, though. I saw this one painting that actually messed up an angle that would result in an optical illusion IRL and if you see the scene IRL, the optical illusion is there. It isn't in the painting, though. I thought that was amazing!

[Kupocake]

I personally feel photorealism is something to learn early on when you're still trying to develop rendering skills/how to shade properly. After you acquire these skills, there really is no point going on with it. But it is a very impressive skill to have.

Call me cynical, but I've found those atelier schools that spend 3-4 months on a single cast study a complete waste of time. Then again, I don't have much patience for such meticulous shading either.

[Zenia Wulfe]

I like photorealism when the painting/drawing is of something that does not exist in real life. Like, fantasy/sci-fi. That way it shows the incredible skill of the artist AND their creativity. If they are just copying a photo or something, I may admire their skill, but once I have finished my: "Oooooooh It's so real!" then I don't care anymore.

[AmberIsland]

Its weird because they do usually whats in front of them and arn't very creative
but it shows skill

[cirtneccE]

Photo realism is a sign of ability. To say that it can't be creative.... well I would disagree.
Stylized doesn't equal creativity and lots of stylized images exist with cliche subject matter demonstrating borrowed imagination. A photo realistic image can still have interesting concept.

[DARKiish]

i would agree that photorealism is a good place to start developing technical skill. Then that technical skill can be applied to more creative and inventive drawings (:

[Fansub]

Definitely not my thing, though that kind of rendering skill is admirable.

[Kaxen]

cirtneccE

Photo realism is a sign of ability. To say that it can't be creative.... well I would disagree.
Stylized doesn't equal creativity and lots of stylized images exist with cliche subject matter demonstrating borrowed imagination. A photo realistic image can still have interesting concept.

Agreed.


Assuming the artist in question has any sense of interesting composition and subject matter, being photorealistic doesn't mean it's automatically boring.


I also like very realistic images when they're draw flipping gigantic. @_@ It's just fun like that.

[Aellos]

Is photography not art?

I think it can be quite creative for the same reason photography can be creative. You're capturing exactly what you see, but you're capturing a moment in time that you feel fits to capture. I think that's quite creative. biggrin

[Balloons]

I think it can be beautiful and show skill, but it's hard to take photorealist painting or drawing beyond just being decorative. Artwork shouldn't just be about how pretty something is or how hard it was to create the image. This is why you can see a dramatic shift in painting techniques after photography came about. If you can capture an image exactly with the click of a button, what's the point in striving to recreate it with paints or other materials?

Look at Chuck Close's work! He did large photorealist drawings and paintings for a while and they were impressive but nothing new. When he was in an accident and forced to come up with a new way to create images he began making portraits out of small abstract colored squares. This work is way more interesting than his previous stuff and what lead him to become such a famous and successful artist.

[Fansub]

Balloons

This is why you can see a dramatic shift in painting techniques after photography came about.

Hyperrealism came about long after the invention of the camera, and it's still very active today.

Portrait painters also still exist, and can charge up to $25,000 for a portrait. Realistic figure painting is not dead at all -- there are art schools and ateliers all over the world dedicated to teaching it, and it's how a lot of artists make a living.

[cirtneccE]

Kaxen

cirtneccE

Photo realism is a sign of ability. To say that it can't be creative.... well I would disagree.
Stylized doesn't equal creativity and lots of stylized images exist with cliche subject matter demonstrating borrowed imagination. A photo realistic image can still have interesting concept.

Agreed.


Assuming the artist in question has any sense of interesting composition and subject matter, being photorealistic doesn't mean it's automatically boring.


I also like very realistic images when they're draw flipping gigantic. @_@ It's just fun like that.

Flipping gigantic? Like... wall size? That would be awesome! I would love to have a photorealistic painting on one of my bedroom walls, especially if it looked like you could walk through it! A forest in my living room, a sunny flower field in my hallway, a creeeeeeeeeepy cave entrance in my room.... hee, how cool would that be?

[BunnyCupCakes]

Zenia Wulfe

I like photorealism when the painting/drawing is of something that does not exist in real life. Like, fantasy/sci-fi. That way it shows the incredible skill of the artist AND their creativity. If they are just copying a photo or something, I may admire their skill, but once I have finished my: "Oooooooh It's so real!" then I don't care anymore.

Pretty much this.

[bim bap]

cirtneccE

Photo realism is a sign of ability. To say that it can't be creative.... well I would disagree.
Stylized doesn't equal creativity and lots of stylized images exist with cliche subject matter demonstrating borrowed imagination. A photo realistic image can still have interesting concept.

Agreed. Photorealism can (and often is) boring, but not when handled by the right artist. Chuck Close comes to mind (his works were freaking huge, and if you get the chance to see one in person grab the opportunity), and Goings, whose smart-assed attitude added personality to his (unashamedly traced) work, and my favorite, Audrey Flack. In her World War II (Vanitas) it was her subject and arrangement that was striking, and her use of extreme realism just added to the impact.

Really, Photorealism isn't about being a human photocopier any more than photography itself is.