Do you think photorealism has taken the character out of Artwork?

Question

Do you think it broadens Art daria?

Answer 1

as a movement, i'd have to say it's purpose is definitely something i've never personally enjoyed. It's only purpose was to copy and deliberately make things look...well...photorealistic!

Pretty shallow i suppose. However, i guess it broadens what we can call art, and hey if art can be flexible to anyone, it's pretty darn good.

Answer 2

No it is an aspect and a style of art just as real and relevant as any other. Photorealism deals with the depth perception of the individual and merely accentuates how keen that perception really is in reference to the world around them and that too is just as poingant a message as any other in art. It adds an interesting facet to an already mutifaceted and facinating mode of expression.

Answer 3

Since the time of the Impressionists the message has been that art was SELF EXPRESSION. The photorealists are expressing themselves with as much validity as Pollack or Modgliani. They have taken none of the character out of art and to say so is as prejudical as to say that Picasso is junk.

Answer 4

I don't think so . I believe it's an art form by itself . It takes great skill to practice this kind of art , and I believe there are also other elements of artwork construction to be taken into consideration , such as composition , colors , subject .

Answer 5

I'm in awe of it. I'm terrible at painting and seeing those pieces just leaves me speechless.

Richard Estes's 'Telephone Booths' (1967)hangs in my hallway. His depiction of the booths, whilst realistic, has an abstract quality to it with all the world's colors reflected on the shiny surfaces.

Answer 6

Good question. Somewhat aye?