Color and Realism

[Einion]

Although I suppose it was inevitable that photography would come into it at some point it would be nice if we didn't get bogged down in the photographs v. original or photographs v. paintings side of things.

Originally Posted by MikeN

Your opinion is noted and I would certainly agree that photography has its advanteges at times. However, we should make a distinction. Although a camera may be quicker to capture a fleeting moment, it does not follow that it will be the best expression of that moment.

Didn't want to imply that a photo is the representation of something (although of course for a photographer it could well be obviously).

Photographs are in many ways a paragon of realism, better in certain respects at capturing accurately a fleeting moment than nearly any painting.

Originally Posted by MikeN

Ironically, the camera's mechanical accuracy is its biggest problem when depicting reality. Like I have mentioned before, the most accurate representation of a singular vantage point is still only that. A sliver of something much more complex. A painter can infuse a two-dimensional scene with his/her knowlege of the THREE-DIMENSIONAL space. They have the ability to overcome spatial obsurdities which are abundantly present in nature. Not to mention, artists can enhance to better communicate subtlies such as physical lightness or heaviness, density, tact, closeness or farness.

I know what you're getting at here but we shouldn't overlook what retouching can do, especially in the modern age. It doesn't necessarily make an art photograph more like paintings are in terms of colour (typically or in specific cases), but it can do a huge amount to improve on a basic captured image. Even if we only consider high-dynamic-range photographs, they're worlds beyond a simple photograph and go a long way towards compensating for two of the major issues painters have with photographic images - lack of detail in highlights and darks.

Originally Posted by MikeN

A couple additional advantages: A photograph's surface lacks physcial structure, where as paint has an added dimension.

This isn't a given; some ultra-realistic work is relatively lacking of 3D irregularities, even up close (airbrush work in particular). Other very realistic paintings are only tight - like they appear in reproductions - when viewed from a distance; up close, surprisingly painterly in one way or another.

Originally Posted by MikeN

Color use and surface structure are qualities that seperates a painter from a renderer. In some astonishing cases the paint's texture is almost literally transformed into the object being represented. Look at Wayne Theibaud's cakes for example; paint doesn't just render icing, it becomes icing. I know of no cameras that can do this.

While I'm now a fan of controlled texture in paintings we have to acknowledge that this is a qualitative judgment.

Photographers, and photo fans, could easily prefer the photographic image over Theibaud's representations of cakes. 3D digital modellers could prefer a photo-real (unsatisfying term, but no choice) rendered image to one of his paintings also.

Originally Posted by MikeN

In addition, a photograph's surface fails to control opacity, translucency, transparency, not to mention other qualities of surface such physical sheen of the surface. All of these can be varied and used to express artistic intent by the painter. Mark Rothko is a wonderful example of this. Many of his paintings can only been appreciated in person.

Erk, that's a hard sell to me!

Originally Posted by wal_t

Take whatever scene and ask a good photographer to take a photo and ask a good painter to make a painting telling both that it has to be realistic. Now show the result to 100 people and ask them what would reflect reality more in their opinion .... the photo or the painting ..... I am curious what the outcome would be but I believe most - if not all - will opt for the first.

In most cases I'd say that is likely.

Einion

[marielizabeth]

Originally Posted by Shadia

Interesting topic, for sure!
At that point on my learning curve, I consider "realistic" a painting depicting three dimensions on a two dimensional support.
meaning: representing what light does to the thing I want to paint, using the effects of lights and shadows. This can be done in a very painterly / loose , or in a very tight style, but will still be realistic.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth!
Keep painting!
Shadia

Well said Shadia, I would add only this, that the subject would be something other people besides the artist can see and would consider "real". (As opposed to an artist who dropped acid and is painting his hallucinations, or an artist distorting perspective or color etc. for a "birds-eye-view" or how an object might appear to an ant or a dog)

What I was saying is true about colour and many a realist will put down Impressionism on a daily basis because it goes against the grain of a realist

What?? Realists owe a huge debt to the impressionist movement, who actually took art out of the "formula" painting style they rebelled against and instead painted what they could see not only as it pertained to color and perspective and atmosphere, but recording the truth of conditions and people of the times they lived in. Anyone who thinks the impressionists were not realist painters don't understand the Impressionists. (which brings us round to the reason they split from the National Galleries and became a group apart in the first place) I do believe that they became so intent on finding and proving color theories that drawing and some other technical skills took a back seat which caused a larger rift because the established art world and people did not understand what they were trying to do. That from Impressionism sprang cubism, modern art, abstract art, etc. cannot be denied, but by and large they were trying to be true to what they saw, their perception of reality. Whew!

Mike N, your question reminds me of a story. About twenty years ago, I decided that in order to be a better figure painter I needed to learn to paint landscapes to do better backgrounds, so I found a teacher in Salt Lake City who was teaching me. She painted with a "Bob Ross" -type wet in wet technique, which was okay with me, but my husband hated everything I painted in her classes. Not being an artist himself, all he kept saying to me is "they aren't real". The trees looked like trees, the water looked wet and like water. I loved the skies and the mist and atmosphere was a whole new perspective, so I didn't understand him at all. Finally, I nailed him down and made him talk about what was wrong with those paintings. Now, he is an avid sportsman and out doors man and what he meant was that she placed trees in mountain scenes which were obviously above the timber line where they could not live. She placed Rocks in areas where they were out of place. What he was trying to tell me was that although she knew how to paint a tree, a lake, a mountain, etc. etc, she had not studied nature enough to place the right things together. Therefore, her paintings drove him crazy. So began my plein air paint forays, so, although she taught me paint handling techniques and gave me a place to start, I learned that if you want to paint realistically, you really need to learn something about what your are painting or they will look phony to people who do know about the subject you are painting.
And that all I have to say abot that
'becca

[tigerpaw]

Like looking at a high quality Photograph
, only with your enhanced values and judgements, hope that made sense? maybe not.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by marielizabeth

Mike N, your question reminds me of a story. About twenty years ago, I decided that in order to be a better figure painter I needed to learn to paint landscapes to do better backgrounds, so I found a teacher in Salt Lake City who was teaching me. She painted with a "Bob Ross" -type wet in wet technique, which was okay with me, but my husband hated everything I painted in her classes. Not being an artist himself, all he kept saying to me is "they aren't real". The trees looked like trees, the water looked wet and like water. I loved the skies and the mist and atmosphere was a whole new perspective, so I didn't understand him at all. Finally, I nailed him down and made him talk about what was wrong with those paintings. Now, he is an avid sportsman and out doors man and what he meant was that she placed trees in mountain scenes which were obviously above the timber line where they could not live. She placed Rocks in areas where they were out of place. What he was trying to tell me was that although she knew how to paint a tree, a lake, a mountain, etc. etc, she had not studied nature enough to place the right things together. Therefore, her paintings drove him crazy. So began my plein air paint forays, so, although she taught me paint handling techniques and gave me a place to start, I learned that if you want to paint realistically, you really need to learn something about what your are painting or they will look phony to people who do know about the subject you are painting.
And that all I have to say abot that
'becca

Becca,

That is a wonderful point, thanks for sharing it

[lenepveu]

who actually took art out of the "formula" painting style they rebelled against and instead painted what they could see not only as it pertained to color and perspective and atmosphere, but recording the truth of conditions and people of the times they lived in. Anyone who thinks the impressionists were not realist painters don't understand the Impressionists. (which brings us round to the reason they split from the National Galleries and became a group apart in the first place) I do believe that they became so intent on finding and proving color theories that drawing and some other technical skills took a back seat which caused a larger rift because the established art world and people did not understand what they were trying to do. That from Impressionism sprang cubism, modern art, abstract art, etc. cannot be denied, but by and large they were trying to be true to what they saw, their perception of reality. Whew!

You might need to check out the details on the impressionist movement. Contrary to what you wrote, its was extremely complex with dozens and dozens of artists worldwide with disparate views. Some were symbolists, for example. Others were, what you might consider, formulaic. Also, what do you mean by National Galleries?

[marielizabeth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism

[rltromble]

This is how I classify some art forms,
Primitive- Symbolic art, simplistic but with some attempt at proportion.
Realism- Mimicry of reality,
Impressionism-Attempt to capture mood or an idea of a supject
Photo Realism- Attempt to capture exactly the way things are.
Surrealism-Realist subjects in impossable situations.

[James or Jimmy Jim]

Originally Posted by rltromble

Realism- Mimicry of reality

Not necessarily true. I prefer the word interpretation.

[sidbledsoe]

Humans must classify everything, that really simplifies pigeon holing things prior to the inevitable "evaluation" of the things that will surely follow. Then the problem of catagorizing when something doesn't fit, solution: make up a new category that can be properly criticized!
This is a big argument I have had with my brother about music for many years now, thus my sensitivity. (never mind me, now talk amongst yourselves)

[James or Jimmy Jim]

Originally Posted by sidbledsoe

Humans must classify everything, that really simplifies pigeon holing things prior to the inevitable "evaluation" of the things that will surely follow. Then the problem of catagorizing when something doesn't fit, solution: make up a new category that can be properly criticized!
This is a big argument I have had with my brother about music for many years now, thus my sensitivity. (never mind me, now talk amongst yourselves)

Humans? This isn't real, just virtual ... isn't it?

[sidbledsoe]

You are right, cybereality it is.

[stoney]

Originally Posted by sidbledsoe

Humans must classify everything, that really simplifies pigeon holing things prior to the inevitable "evaluation" of the things that will surely follow. Then the problem of catagorizing when something doesn't fit, solution: make up a new category that can be properly criticized!

Or dismissed.

[Use Her Name]

I feel I paint realistically, my paintings look like something that exists in the world--- however, when I use color, I use it for various reasons. It is not enough to get accurate Local color. Color is also used for perspective, (the illusion of depth) as well as for drama, feeling (mood), as you say tempreture, and other psychological reasons not just the illusion of something realistic. I started by wanting to be one of these photo-realistically accurate painters, but as it ends up I do not have the right temprement for it, so I try to match my personality to my style-- alos, of course, my expectations of what the finished work should look like. The more I paint, the better I get at this. I classify my art as somewhere between realism and impressionism, but not abstract enough to be considered abstract, or coseptual. Like you , I don't quite know what that means. I tend to classify things more by what they are not than what they are, because everyone's work is different and sometimes just pidgeon-holing things is not a very accurate way to describe things.

[oldrockchick]

I am not as well educated in art or art history as you guys but as that other member said...

Originally Posted by gunzorro

I'm not an expert in realism, but I know it when I run into it.

But to me realism is when something looks like what it is meant to look like (poor grammar I know but not easy to define)

egs

A constable landscape or a Stubbs horse painting to me is realsitic whereas a Picasso cubist portrait is not.

But thats just my limited perception.

[Davidem]

Originally Posted by MikeN

In regards to a recent thread here in CT&M:

I noticed the term "Realism" used frequently when attached to an accurate style of painting. I find the word as ambiguous as descriptions like "temperature" or even "tone".

I thought I would bring the topic up for discussion. For starters I am curious about WC member's thoughts and definitions of the term. I ask what, for you, is realism? Specifically, how is color used "realisticly" in a painting or work of art? Is it merely transferring colors that are seen to a canvas with the upmost precision? Is it something more sophisticated? Possibly, suplementing what is seen with knowlege of a more truthful view? Do you feel that using color "realistically" is a mechanical act, or is it an informed expression?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Mike

Hello Mike,

I was browsing the forum list and saw this thread, it is quite long but your question is quite interesting. Could you kind of give me an idea of where you stand on the answers to date, I wouldn't want to repeat any ideas you have already heard.

Thanks,

David