Home Forums The Think Tank Creativity Hyper-realism: Is it creative or simply reproduction?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 233 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #992445
    it’sALLart
    Default

        When it comes to talent and skills in the world of art, nothing seems to get more attention from the masses than the pieces that are painted or drawn, which resemble photography.

        I’ve seen it happen at a few of my shows where there might be one or two pieces that are realistic. They would get far more attention than the ones I thought were far more creative. In fact, it’s affected my attitude towards realism to a degree. I have stopped producing photo-real works.

        Why?

        I no longer try to create pieces that are photo-real because I can’t figure out what message the piece would convey. Is it done to simply state that I’ve got the chops to do it and can? Other than that, wouldn’t a photo say just about the same thing? “Here is an object or a scene in sharp focus.” Of course, it might be celebrating nature or beauty in some sense, but that’s it and I can do that with a piece that isn’t photo-real and say even more.

        A painting that is done in a realistic sense, but brings something MORE to the work that a camera cannot do…? For me, that’s truly creative. The artist has actually put a quality into the work that a camera can never come up with, either some kind of technique or surface treatment or brushwork or something that no matter what, a camera cannot duplicate.

        Yet I see so many artists, young and old, trying to reach this perfection of duplication without the addition of creativity to the work. I can’t figure out what the goal of that kind of painting is other than “Hey, look at me, I can make something look REAL!”

        So, whether or not you work in a photo-real style, what do you think the message (if any) is behind realism pieces? Do you think they’re creative or do you think they’re simply showing skills?

        #1215157
        John Emmett
        Default

            [FONT=”Georgia]Were it done a few centuries earlier, it would no doubt be in museums, etc.[/FONT]

            #1215118
            it’sALLart
            Default

                Well, that’s easy enough to understand, there were no cameras to re-represent reality to the viewer.

                However, IMO, the camera sort of makes photo-real work superfluous UNLESS it has the extra element of creativity added…

                #1215158
                John Emmett
                Default

                    [FONT=”Georgia]People always had eyes you know.

                    I would say it’s creating… not as poetry, it’s nonfiction.
                    [/FONT]

                    #1215245
                    Anonymous

                        I’m with you 100%, photo-realism is craft & not art.
                        Art is about expression, ie. it expresses something about the subject , the artists feelings or perceptions.
                        I reckon photo-realism has said nothing of value after those first few pictures were done all those years ago , they made a point then.
                        I think when an artist starts out , capturing a likeness is their main concern ( & probably should be ) but later when you mature in taste & understanding it is about something else entirely.
                        It’s well documented of course that many painters threw away their brushes when the early photography was developed in France ! but we are way past that as artists, aren’t we?

                        #1215159
                        John Emmett
                        Default

                            [FONT=”Georgia]Yes poetry is more creative than nonfiction. They serve different aims and intentions…[/FONT]

                            #1215189
                            La_
                            Default

                                i admire artists who are able to do photo realism pieces, it’s work and takes a good understanding of technique, patience, colour management …
                                but i agree with you about it being more ‘craftsmanship’ than ‘creative’.

                                Dali is a good example of mixing grand technique with grand creativity.

                                cameras, you can do a lot of creativity with cameras, if you understand their settings … and know your way around a darkroom … but to rely on a camera to show you true reality, has flaws, many flaws.

                                la

                                _____________________________________________
                                When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace

                                #1215095

                                Well, that’s easy enough to understand, there were no cameras to re-represent reality to the viewer.

                                However, IMO, the camera sort of makes photo-real work superfluous–[/quote]

                                I’m with you 100%, photo-realism is craft & not art.[/quote]

                                Yes, absolutely!

                                ‘Cause all photographs look alike, and there’s absolutely no creativity to photography, whatsoever!

                                Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
                                http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
                                Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

                                #1215119
                                it’sALLart
                                Default

                                    There’s no argument from me, it does take lots of skill, I’ve lived that and know how much hard work it is. Some of my early illustration pieces (magazine covers) were 50 hours or more of painstaking work. Not fun.

                                    I think most artists would get what I’m talking about, the immediacy of realism mixed with a unique concept that does the impossible or adds some kind of quality that can’t be summoned with a camera.

                                    Dali is a great example, thanks for that, La. Another would be Chuck Close who uses a specific technique to create a “reality” that can’t be done any other way. Another is

                                    Ron Mueck, who’s sculptures are world-renown for their realism, along with Jamie Salmon… both (mostly) work larger-than-life, so there’s something there about expression, size, immediacy… makes it art for me.

                                    Robert Vickrey has a way of making photo-real works, but there is always a little brushwork showing and also his themes, lighting and (in later works) layering of imagery takes it a step further.

                                    For me, someone simply setting up mason jars full of marbles and making a painting of it, complete with tiny reflections and dust on the table, etc… well, kudos, that’s amazing skill. But for me… not great art because of the lack of concept or the lack of anything else that takes it higher.

                                    #1215109

                                    I think it really depends on the subject matter 100%. You can be a photo-realist and have mad skills to make everything look amazingly similar to a photograph, but you must also have the creativity to deliver some kind of message as well.

                                    While writing this Aron Wiesenfeld[/URL] happens to come to mind as one artist that can do both. I would not say that his skill set is spent on just craft, but that he actually has an artistic and creative vision. Maybe that’s what I mean more than “message.” I don;t think you need a message, but a vision. When I think of a “message” per say, I think of a specific point and I don’t think art needs to have that. I don’t think art needs a reason other than aesthetics alone.

                                    Not that we should get into what aesthetics are. That’s a whole other thread, but I do agree that as impressive as photorealism is, it feels empty when it lacks originality.

                                    When the marbles were brought up, I think of this artist I know, Daryl Gortner[/URL] who painted that exact painting and I can see the appeal in it for some people. It’s obviously the color and a bit of the subject matter being a little kitsch. It’s like hyper-realism pop art that does have appeal to some, and call me cynical, but I would categorize it as decor, just as I would a lot of abstract art that has a lot of symmetry or is just too derivative. Even abstracts need new vision, new risks, originality and something special to bring them into their own.

                                    All in all, I think art just needs to speak and connect, not just decorate or duplicate. The more it connects with the viewer, the more magical.

                                    #1215120
                                    it’sALLart
                                    Default

                                        All in all, I think art just needs to speak and connect, not just decorate or duplicate.

                                        The marble painter’s work is very good, but doesn’t say anything that a camera could not, IMO. And I guess, that is my point… I find it sort of boring (or lacking for my own sense of “what is art”) because the artist is not pushing things further with those skills in order to create a piece of art which a camera cannot possibly create.

                                        PS: IMO, Wiesenfeld’s work is far more surreal than photo-real. Very nice work, either way and very compelling images.

                                        #1215190
                                        La_
                                        Default

                                            [COLOR=”Teal]Yes, absolutely!

                                            ‘Cause all photographs look alike, and there’s absolutely no creativity to photography, whatsoever![/COLOR]

                                            your sarcasm is leaking, keith :lol:

                                            la

                                            _____________________________________________
                                            When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace

                                            #1215096

                                            your sarcasm is leaking, keith :lol:

                                            la

                                            Good.

                                            Honestly, I think the term “photo-realistic” needs to be retired, just as the word “abstract” needs to be taken out and shot.

                                            There are numerous, well-known photographers whose work isn’t remotely “photo-realistic”…which means the term “photo-realistic” doesn’t really make any sense whatsoever…

                                            Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
                                            http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
                                            Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

                                            #1215272
                                            Rodjama
                                            Default

                                                Its craft in the strict sense of that word, not art in its expressive meaning.


                                                #1215198
                                                AllisonR
                                                Default

                                                    Its all opinions, so I might as well add mine. I think photography can certainly be art. I think photography is often more creative than most photo realism paintings. I also come to it thinking “you added nothing, why didn’t you just stop at the photo.”

                                                    FWIW, I have done photo realism; it is many, many, many hours of impeccable details, so I know the skill and patience it requires. But if it does not add to what the original photo was, then it is just one more painting trying to prove itself via skill as opposed to content. And yes, this does impress a lot of people. All of my photo realistic paintings have sold, but certainly not all my other works from life have sold. My works starting from a photo but moving on to something more, have not sold nearly as well either. But for me personally, it is the process, not the dollar sign, so I continue trying to learn by working in other styles, or my own style. Other experiences will obviously vary.

                                                    Being born places you at a greater risk of dying later in life.

                                                    http://www.artallison.com/
                                                  Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 233 total)
                                                  • The topic ‘Hyper-realism: Is it creative or simply reproduction?’ is closed to new replies.