Do you remember way back in the day when art actually use to look like real things and people?

Question

Understood: apparently you never Understood that I was obviously talking about paintings.

Answer 1

Yes. Then the impressionists came in and art began to look like the junk i throw into the garbage every so often. Or maybe like a young childs finger painting.

i was watching a commercial the other day of a lady rolling around on a canvas covered floor covered in paint. The next scene was someone buying the "painting". What a dope.

Answer 2

It still does if you know where to look.Traditional realism is still being done and the artists who keep the flame alive for it are alive and well, working quietly in their studios producing great works of art.It's a shame that something like conceptual art( live bizarre art performances) could get so much attention compared to someone that's say an amazing realist painter. I'm not talking about those obssesive realist painters that make everything look like a photo either. It's all a matter of exposure, marketing and location. Not everyone wants to buy art that matches their couch thank God!( All though there's a lot of those kinds of nitwits out there....)

Answer 3

How far 'back in the day' do you mean? Like, back when the Vatican decided what 'art' was and who could make it? My favorite art, for the most part, was created from the second half of the 19th century up into the 1940's. My favorite painters are Van Gogh, Magritte, Kahlo, deChirico, Chagall, Okeefe, Hopper, Delvaux, Benton, and Modigliani, among so many. Most of this art would be called 'representational'-all of it was freed up by the modern notions of light, movement, subject , form, and composition. I like some art that could be called 'abstract', 'abstract expressionist', 'installations', etc- probably the type of art that so many people disparage. A lot of it is crap, but not all. Many people say things like "I could do THAT!!" or "My three year old could do that". Most great artists understand the value of children's art- its innocence, its fresh view of the world, unfettered by the preconceptions with which an adult rolls through life. Lots of folks seem to laugh at paintings like Pollack's 'Lavender Mist' or a Rothko piece without considering the painting's effect on the viewer and the environment by use of color and form. Lots of people only want pictures of "something". One thing that I do not really like is Photorealism- paintings which are, as the name implies, extremely realistic. They are , to me, the parlor tricks of art. As testaments to the artists' skill with the brush, they seem little more than giant photo blow-ups, with no real emotional value. Then there is that Thomas Kincaid guy- maybe the most popular (in terms of sales) painter in the world today. The self-proclaimed (and trademarked) "Painter of Light" looks like a Hallmark card painter to me, nothing new or of lasting value. It's kind of like choosing between the non-platinum but highly-charged Clash or the best-selling but vapid Air Supply.

Answer 4

I think it was better then. I like realism with one exception, Dali. I think the same thing is happening to photography. For the most part, I hate fantasy. With my photos, I want to take something real, an object or objects in a controlled setting, create a supernatural mood by focusing on the shadows or darker aspects of the photo, try to put the viewer in an other worldly place, to convey a sense of another time and place that exists beneath the surface, you know, that is timeless.

Answer 5

Realism 1850-1880
http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c19th/realism.htm

Answer 6

Yeah now we have a bunch of poor grad students pretentiously trying to smear everything on canvas and say its lashing out against President Bush or something.

Answer 7

I'm too young to remember those days.

There's still lots of art out there that resembles actual objects in real life, but there sure is a whole lot of wacky crap out there too....

Answer 8

I'll have to ask Salvador Dali.

Answer 9

Then they starting calling this form of art "photography." What century are you from?

Answer 10

yes not it looks like little kids drew them