What do you think about realism in art. Thanks.?

Answer 1

It seems to me that the point of art is to show you something beyond reality. I think it was Martha Graham who once said, when asked to explain one of her dances, "If I could say it in words, I wouldn't have to dance it."

Answer 2

There is a place for it. It seems to work best if the realism is used for illustration as Norman Rockwell did it. He used exaggerated scenarios and expression to tell a good story. His art is well loved for a reason. It was very realistic and managed to touch our hearts like no other form of art could because what he wanted to convey was easily recognizable by everyone. Only realism can do that.

In my work I tend to use realism because I feel such joy in doing it. I can paint abstractly but it lacks the essence of what I want to share and show. So I find myself continuing to work, adding and fine-tuning and before I know it I have turned it into something much more realistic than I had originally intended. But the realism is what I want to convey! The beauty in the grain of wood, the intricate tangle of twigs and the light reflecting off of wet fish scales. If I don't paint them realistically then the magic I am seeing isn't portrayed in my work.

Some consider realism to be purely reproduction, akin to difficult photography, and I can understand that. I think that my contribution is to show the realism artistically. The stage the picture, compose it so that it is artistic and not a 'photograph'.

Answer 3

I would like to keep certain level of realism in art because it has greater reach and a wider audience. My level of threshold for abstract was never to the other extreme that leaves one clueless or guessing the artwork. I prefer semi abstract (performing arts or visual arts) that hold on to the realism to guide the audience.

I feel an art piece is created for collective appreciation NOT self appreciation. If you believe in the latter then my question is this: why exhibit it to the world??

Answer 4

I think it's great if you have a reason to be realistic. For millenia art was process of creating a journal of life during an era; after the invention of photography however, that purpose was pretty summarily taken over. This is why modern art movements like Impressionism, Cubism, Dada, Surrealism, Pop, Op, etc all were formed after all...to assert those artists theories as to why art is still relevant to society. If you're making a picture just to be realistic for a reason, I consider that to be just a designer; if you're making a picture realistic to convey something relevant to you or emotionally engaging to you, then that's art to me!

(Put another way, think about court and criminal sketchers; they often do a great amount of detailed work, and yet they're not generally considered for their artistic value. )

Answer 5

Tradition accept as realism literary production: Balzac, Dickens, Stendhal, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, ...I love them.
I don't gratify Zola, I don't gratify "naturalism". I like non-hero but I don't like groundless obscenity in art.
You can add for painting, Salvatore Dali's statement.

Answer 6

I TS COOL IF YOURE A GREAT SKETCHER.....YOU DO GET THE REAL...IF NOT ...NO MATTER WHAT STYLE THEY PUT YOU IN.....ITS YOUR IMPRESSION.... THERES ROOM FOR ALL KINDS OF ART.....SOME OF THE MOST VALUED PIECES.....ARE A ??? TO MANY OBSERVERS....I THINK WE TAKE ALL THE TRAINING AND ALL OF THE COURSES AND RULES.......AND THEN USE OUR OWN ARTISTIC LICENSE ANYWAY...IT BECOMES RECOGNIZABLE AS A " FAMOUS WHATEVERS PIECE"

Answer 7

i think it's useful, if you're trying to give someone a realistic portrayal of something

Answer 8

get it through your brain... there is nothing real about art.

it is art.

Answer 9

one man's art is another mans crap.