Discussion point - Hyper-realistic paintings

[WthrLady]

I'm sitting here reading through a newer magazine on the market and have just finished an article where the artist paints everything in a hyper realistic style. He takes 50-80 photos and then figures out how he wants things to be.

I certainly can appreciate the talent it takes to end up with that effect, but I can honestly say that I am not a fan of the style. But honestly, why not just stick with the photo if it's that close? It just doesn't impress me artistically. (neither does abstract, honestly)


Style wise, I'm all over the board with what I like. Mostly I enjoy looking at something where I can feel that the artist had some kid of connection with what they were trying to portray or evoke emotion or discussion from the viewer.

So how do you feel and what kind of style rings your bells?

[Mayberry]

"He takes 50-80 photos and then figures out how he wants things to be."

This sounds like the artistic process going on to me.

"But honestly, why not just stick with the photo if it's that close?"

I think that oftentimes a "hyper realistic" painting actually is not all that much like a photograph. With every brushstroke, decisions are made to sharpen, soften, darken, brighten, sweep this way or that way. The final result may have some first glance resemblance to a photograph, but it often has a quality of precision, crispness, rhythm, and freshness of color unlike any real photograph.

I like some "hyper realistic" paintings, and some I don't particularly like. To me, it depends more on other factors. Some I find very moving, while some leave me flat. Here's one of my favorite artists: http://www.jeffgola.com/index.html

[Captain G]

I love that style of painting! I once saw an exhibit at the Hirshhorn Museum in DC by a group of Spanish realists. It was very inspiring, although it looked very difficult to achieve. Some of the members here paint very realistically and I like what they do as well.

"But honestly, why not just stick with the photo if it's that close?"

because when you paint you put your thoughts, feelings and skills into the painting which make it yours. It's what you choose to do with your talent and what makes you want to paint. Painting is more than just the end result, it's a journey toward a goal that is based on what you like and what you hope to achieve.
I really like this style of painting but I can enjoy almost all styles. I can appreciate the the imagination, skill and time which goes into every painting.

[Marcio C]

I think hyper realism has its place and has artistic value, even though I don't really like the style. I like a wide range of things; what I like most is between impressionism and semi-abstract; what I like the least is the Kinkade style, and hyper realism and some types of abstract such as Pollock's don't resonate with me either.

[Captain G]

Cathy, thanks for the link to Jeff Gola, I loved the paintings!

[Mayberry]

"Cathy, thanks for the link to Jeff Gola, I loved the paintings!"

You're welcome, Bill! Jeff Gola is also a member of WetCanvas. He sometimes posts in the Casein/Gouache/Egg Tempera forum.

[CharM]

Hi Caryl... this is one of those discussions that could get contentious from the various camps who feel their artistic style is... well... more artistic....

Thanks for that link Cathy!

I'm a fan of the realistic styles perhaps because I enjoy painting meticulous details and I tend to be drawn to artists who focus on those elements. However, hyper-realistic can look tight and uninteresting, just as fast-and-loose can look simply messy... I have come to realize that abstracts require a great deal of planning because the importance of good values, colour and lighting are even more important than in subjective paintings... and I have learned to love line and wash along with a plethora of other styles that I can't even begin to emulate (but have learned to appreciate).

Since joining WetCanvas, I have certainly broadened my horizons and have a much greater appreciation for all styles. There's so much to learn here...

And, I feel that it's important to remember that every time someone puts a mark on a piece of paper, they are striving to improve the beauty in their lives... how they express that beauty is a personal statement and choice.

[virgil carter]

OK, the point of Caryl's post is the extent to which one may like hyper realism or not.


In the end, it's all about one's personal interests and intent for painting. My own interest is for a much more personal and expressive approach to subject matter painted in a representational manner. Hyper realism is really the opposite of personal and expressive painting: it's all about rendering subject matter as realistically as one's technical skill allows.

That's my opinion. I recognize and respect that those who paint using hyper realism may believe that they take personal and expressive liberties with the subject matter.

That said, for those who are inclinded for hyper realism, why not? That's the wonderful thing about painting--something for everyone. I don't have to like hyper realism, but no one else has to like what I do. And that's just fine.

FWIW, I really like non-objective painting. And it's not easy.

Isn't painting great?
Sling paint!
Virgil

[Mayberry]

I'm not very familiar with the term "Hyperrealism" so I looked it up on Wikipedia. I know Wiki is not exactly an authoritative source, but it's a start. Here's an interesting quote from the Wiki entry:

"Hyperreal paintings and sculptures are not strict interpretations of photographs, nor are they literal illustrations of a particular scene or subject. Instead, they utilize additional, often subtle, pictorial elements to create the illusion of a reality which in fact either does not exist or cannot be seen by the human eye. Furthermore, they may incorporate emotional, social, cultural and political thematic elements as an extension of the painted visual illusion; a distinct departure from the older and considerably more literal school of Photorealism."

Also from the Wiki entry:

"Hyperrealism has its roots in the philosophy of Jean Baudrillard, 'the simulation of something which never really existed.' As such, Hyperrealists create a false reality, a convincing illusion based on a simulation of reality, the digital photograph."

[WthrLady]

The hyper realism I am talking about is when you really cannot tell, without deeply studying 5he work, the difference between the work and a photograph.

[Cyntada]

Some years ago I was friends with a lady who told me her dad, a watercolorist, had just been featured on a magazine cover. I waited eagerly to see her the following week as she'd offered to show me the cover... came in and there was an art mag on the coffee table, with a photo of some gorgeous flowers on it. Was confused, then realized her dad had painted the flowers That was my first introduction to hyper/photo realism.

Down the track a bit, it's very much the direction I lean to as a painter, BUT... something about reproducing things with photographic accuracy leaves me a bit empty as an artist. I like seeing other's work at such level of detail, but it isn't enough for me. I'm not sure what enough is, but I am now feeling the urge to "say" more with my paintings than "sunlight was falling on the flower petals" or the like.

So, I suppose the best of both worlds would be the technical achievement of a truly photographic painting, that still sends a message or creates a mood that a camera could not have caught.

Or, just paint it fast and loose and expressive!

[noge]

Originally Posted by Cyntada

So, I suppose the best of both worlds would be the technical achievement of a truly photographic painting, that still sends a message or creates a mood that a camera could not have caught.

Or, just paint it fast and loose and expressive!

IMHO - Thats the point

If somebody paints in Hyperrealistic style - its absolute OK

But if he /she does only copy photos - whithout personal input (composition, colors , light, mood , season .....)
what for ????
I have no problem to hang a good photo on my wall - but I wouldnt copy and hang it ( Difficult to explain for me in English )

BTW If somebody paints "plain air" - its nearly impossible to do this in Hyperrealistic style - because in the time between start & finish the light /sun is changing too much = 4 hours = ~ 60 degree

[StewGold]

Am sitting looking out of my window, planning to go outside and photograph stems of the flowering currant, that's currently in bloom.Will certainly take 50-100 photos, different angles, perhaps using a reflector to increase the natural light on the underside. I'm conciously considering the composition of the photo, the way to light it, how to position the camera so I can perhaps get some of the flowering viburnum into the backgound, using the sky itself as the background; whether or not to use a Hot Mirror filter, to help with accurate colour capture. These will all help later should I decide to paint a picture of the flower stems on the currant. Will it be hyper realist? Nope, I'm Def not skilled that way. Will it involve many images, almost certainly. Will I plan colours and techniques? Of Course. Would I be impressed by a hyper realistic image, of course. But it would have involved composition, consious selection of elements to create the whole, and a skill in design as well as the actual craft of painting. If the finished image captures the vibrancy and life in the plant, then that's great.

As to abstracts, I've seen video of Jackson Pollock, he's not just slapping it all about, there's moments of pause, long periods of walking around studying the image, actions where it's obviously a correction to the image and finally some skill in getting the effects he wants. Sometimes yes, I'll just mess paint around, technically it'll end up "abstract" but there's still thought and planning, and I know if there's an element that works in the image, it gets re-used, and altered to become more "artistic"? even altered to be more abstract, is that the point of abstract? I havn't a clue, but it's what works for me.

If you don't go see new things, and challenge yourself to try to understand something fom the new thing, you can end up in the "I Don't Like it" reaction to anything new. When you see/hear/feel/find something new always attempt to gain something from it. I've ate some truly horrible things, from going "well I've never had frogs legs/ jellied sheeps aorta /savoury fish custard/ stewed bison ect" and trying it out (Though I liked the 4 examples given ). Drank a few odd liquers including "Olatz" which may have been a Spanish drain cleaner considering the expression on the barman's face. But that's part of discovering what you do like. It applies to painting, to dancing, to everything. Enjoy the day, plan for something to enjoy for the next one and as Virgil says "Sling paint"

[watercolourfanatic]

Artists can paint in any style they wish and if they like what they do good luck to them. What I don't like are the elitist individuals who seem to think they are the only arbiters of good taste and those who don't agree with their views are lesser beings.

In a review I did on my blog of an expensive watercolour magazine that - at least in that issue - seemed to be promoting realism to super realism I commented that it wasn't to my taste as I didn't think that was what watercolour was all about. As a result I received a comment calling me a moron. The individual concerned hid behind `Anonymous'. No I don't like superealistic paintings although I am often amazed at the technical skill and effort that must have gone into them.

Peter

[Captain G]

As I get older I try not to deal in absolute statements. I don't like, I would never, I don't think, are all statements which are almost guaranteed to invoke a critical or nasty response. Plus I've come to realize that most people on the internet are not interested in one persons (mine) opinion on things. I recall reading that "real" artists paint in oil. I like to paint in watercolor, so according to this person I'll never be a real artist? Everyone has an opinion, that doesn't mean it's right.
Just my $.02