.

[nauvice]

.....

[JJacks]

Realism (or representational art) isn't dead. There's just more avenues an artist can explore and still be successful.

Some universities and art schools cater to a specific branch of fine arts; that's why it's the students job to research a school thoroughly before attending classes there.

Maybe I am dull but I don't see this "problem" at all.

[nauvice]

well to be honest I've only heard this topic mentioned by a hand count, so I dont know if its generally known or its all in my head. One of my art teachers I had who taught realism, he always talked about wanting to "bring it back", and referred to a number of really skilled realist painters and their ateliers, like Nelson Shanks, as not getting the attention he believes they deserve.

Ever since then I've noticed realist painters seem separated from fine arts, their works are mostly commissioned like illustrators, and gallery exhibitions of their work seem nonexistent to me.

[bhanu]

One thing I have to say to say is that alot of this atelier realism is just boring junk. The pass outs from those ARc acredited schools bore me to death.
If there is any redemption its in artists like kanevsky, kent williams, dave mckean, people who have used realism has a true means to expressing whats very important to them.
I see this other urban realism, where an artists paints goths chick and stuff trying to act all contemporary and with the times, we need to get beyond that.
We need to make more personal statements with art, then only can we make good art.

[tobbA]

Yeah. I agree. There is a lot of realist art for realisms sake going on today. With hyper realistic portraits that are impressive indeed but not that intersting and also look pretty much the same as the other guys. And even when realism was at it's peak that wasn't the case in the past. Rembrandts paintings can't be accused of being boring. There's a big chunk of personality and life in those. Same with bougereau and the pre rafaelites. So I guess if realists want to make a difference they really need to bring more to the table than just well rendered paintings...

[brianvds]

Realism (or representational art) isn't dead. There's just more avenues an artist can explore and still be successful.

Some universities and art schools cater to a specific branch of fine arts; that's why it's the students job to research a school thoroughly before attending classes there.

Maybe I am dull but I don't see this "problem" at all.

Neither do I. It seems to me that the 20th century was in fact a period of an absolutely unprecedented flowering of various forms of realism and semi-realism. Just not so much in fine art. But who cares? Fine art simply isn't the main branch of visual art anymore, whatever postmodernist professors of art history want to believe. The main function of fine art today is decoration, and with that anything goes as long as it goes with the curtains.

In any event, even in fine art, realism remained alive and well. It just wasn't recognized by a bunch of academics anymore. Who cares what those academics think, when it is pretty clear that they can't think at all?

Not that I have it against abstraction, mind you. And I'm quite a fan of some other modernist work as well, such as Picasso. I just don't think it is the be-all and end-all of art.

How do we decide, after all, which art is "important"? What do we mean by important art? Art that is considered such by obscure academics, or art that actually influences society? The art that most profoundly influenced me was the comic book art I grew up with, notably the Tintin and Asterix series. It seems to me those books had far more actual impact in the real world than Damien Hirst. Hence by at least that measure, it is more important. And these are genres of art basically undreamed of before the 20th century. We do indeed live in exciting times, artistically speaking, if only we can look past those random blotches and pickled sheep and canned faeces that the academics hold up as the pinnacle of art.

[brianvds]

One thing I have to say to say is that alot of this atelier realism is just boring junk. The pass outs from those ARc acredited schools bore me to death.

I have something of a love-hate relationship with the ARC people. I must say, I am in awe of their work. But I don't always actually LIKE it that much. Considering the phenomenal technical skills they possess, they come up with quite amazingly bland and mostly very un-memorable work.

Still, I suspect an atelier training will serve any artist very well. The fact that you learned to paint blandly attractive still lifes and landscapes with perfect realism does not compel you to use those skills only for that.

[bhanu]

Considering the phenomenal technical skills they possess

Not much awesome I say, just by practice one can get that.

Still, I suspect an atelier training will serve any artist very well

This sort of study deadens the artist, where he is just a recorder of things, there is no spark left. The problem with these ateliers is that they preach the technicality to be the end and not the means. They dont address the whims of a soul, things that really stir you.

[QueenGwenevere]

That paragraph is waaaay out-of-date, realism and various flavors of representational art have been making a comeback since the 80's at least. It might not be taught in a lot of fine art departments, but fine art in schools is also way behind the times...

Last I checked, fine art these days is pretty much anything goes. Including realism and other forms of representational art. There's a whole range of realism out there currently, from mediocre to edgy and controversial to just plain amazing (Andrew Wyeth is just plain amazing. Andrew Wyeth is a modern artist, and a realist, with a distinctive vision.)

[Klaasillu]

When we think of art, we must think of the context to which art relates. Realism had the importance it had because it was the only, or most accurate representational technique known at that time. You will notice that, by the time Daguerre figured out the salute-sensitive compound --and therefore established an usable and stable photographic method--, the concept of painting shifted significantly. Some historians date the born of the negative-based photographic methodology as the mark of a new concept and understanding in painting. Painting no longer had to relate to reality. Painters had no obligation to paint the lovely (sometimes not so lovely!) curves of the rich goofy missus and their grandfathers, and so on. The fact that they didn't have to do it does not mean they stopped doing it --it just became an option and not what was expected of them.

Technology evolved. Nowadays, everyone is bound to own a camera of sorts, even if only on their own cellphones and the likes. Due to this, the urge to represent reality through painting has demised. Some have kept to their traditional foundations, and aspired to become representational artists. Most have turned their backs on that, as exploring the infinite of one's mind can become quite an adventurous challenge, and far more personal, qui çá.

This is simply my opinion on the matter, though.

[TASmith]

zwarrior, I was going to say you must be new here, then I saw it was you. We've discussed this... Your best bet for a detailed answer is to go through some of the big names in early Modern art history. Try Bauhaus...

[bcarman]

The reality is that academics are only as good as its teachers. Most of the profs in the universities and colleges now are entrenched and holding on to old ideas for dear life because they have built their careers around those ideas and are loathe to change. The truth is that there are very few schools which are truly progressive. Most are scrambling to catch up to what those few are doing. And those few progressives are scrambling to keep up with what the elites of the art world are doing. By the time everyone catches up things are already passe. Because of tenure etc., all an art department can do is find its own voice according to the people they have and be true to it. Students kind of have to keep an eye out for the departments and faculty that they think might lead them in the direction they want to go. Of course this is fraught with difficulties and stumbling points but with our current system students just have to be smarter and more well informed about their choices. I struggle every day with colleagues who still think things are relevant which no longer even merit a blip on the international radar. Thank goodness I made the conscious choice of teaching illustration. I can subvert from here with no no worries about repercussion. The funny things is that I feel a lot more freedom speaking from the base of illustration than I ever did as a graduate student in painting or even as a teacher of painting thereafter.

Bill'sStudio

[AndreasM]

Edit:
What Klaasillu and barcman said. Opinions below are more directed to what bhanu said.

I kinda feel that 'art' on both sides of the spectrum have been severely institutionalized. When a student enters school, he will be confronted with dogmas flying left and right, learning that self expression only can be achieved either through the denial or devoted embrace of the representational.

I have spent 4 years in an atelier education, where direct observation is emphasized above all else, plainly because it's a craft that constantly demands refinement. Painting well is hard.

bhanu, you are mainly touching upon the general aesthetics that covers most of the atelier arts, and I feel that (based on the art I see you make, and the artists you like) you are slightly biased to images that are "violent", "angular" and exiting in treatment. Not saying that there is anything bad about this kind of work (quite the contrary), but these are not elements that exists outside the grasp of 'aquired' skill. And, artistic intentions aside, if the artist is not 100% sincere with his or her vision, the work has the same potential of contrivance as any ARC approved contemplation on beauty.

This sort of study deadens the artist, where he is just a recorder of things, there is no spark left. The problem with these ateliers is that they preach the technicality to be the end and not the means. They dont address the whims of a soul, things that really stir you.

I agree, because I can relate to this. Thing is, this all depends on the artist's personality and what he or she believes in. If I can allow myself to be a little personal; I went through this kind of education being extremely insecure, I have come out of it feeling insecure. It's the insecurity that has allowed me to adapt to imposed institutionalized concepts and opinions. It's my actions and philosophies that will allow my art to express me.

I kinda want to draw a parallel to music...Look at Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Charles Ives or Bèla Bartòk. Even though they were considered radical modernists in their time, they all had background training that was based on strict (academic) methodology. That surely didn't kill them.

[Hyskoa]

Nobody did, non realists just got more press because they were willing to turn the press into their craft, rather than painting itself.

[Ilaekae]

Realism is definitely dead. It was killed by Captain Custard wielding a commode seat in Lady Broomhandle's atelier.

[vineris]

I have something of a love-hate relationship with the ARC people. I must say, I am in awe of their work. But I don't always actually LIKE it that much. Considering the phenomenal technical skills they possess, they come up with quite amazingly bland and mostly very un-memorable work.

It varies, even within the work of the same artist sometimes. I was looking at the gallery from their last competition and Jeffrey T. Larson caught my eye because I've heard of him before. I find his still life to be unbearably dull for the most part, but some of the stuff he does with figures and light is quite interesting to me.

[Chris Saksida]

I think it all comes down to what's "true and honest art" for every artist, I don't think the greatest thing an artist can create is something that "goes beyond" what has been made until that moment, or "revolutionize" or "discover" something new, or reach some new level of "abstraction of the subconscious" or whatever, I think the most elevated kind of art an artist can create is HONEST ART, that is true to the artist and that people can see, or not.

Your most elevated art is the most HONEST art, that means, the art that you can see yourself reflected the most, that you feel represent you at a deep level, and that... you can't really change it, it's like your face, people can like it or not, but it's the only face you have.

[kev ferrara]

Every artform has a lot of murderers, particularly among the practitioners of that artform.

[Hyskoa]

WHO KILLED REALISM?



WERE IT



THE IMPRESSIONISTS?


THE SALONS?


MODERNISM?



FIND OUT, NEXT WEEK ON AN ALL NEW EPISODE OF ... CA.ORG

[nauvice]

zwarrior, I was going to say you must be new here, then I saw it was you. We've discussed this... Your best bet for a detailed answer is to go through some of the big names in early Modern art history. Try Bauhaus...

I know we have, that is not what I'm asking however. Not for an art history lesson, but I'm wondering why today this sentiment exists.

A couple people answered with great food for thought. bcartman's post makes a lot of sense, it could be that teachers would rather teach what they can and so are bias towards it, whether its abstract or realist.

And the statement of "making realism for realism's sake" also hit me right in the face. It's true that when I'm making a painting, my thought process is mostly how much can I capture with my eyes so I can make the painting as detailed as possible. Once I'm done, there's no real personal attachment to it, the most common talk on realist paintings is just "it looks like a photograph!" "look how real it looks" but beyond that, there's not much emotion evoked out of the viewers. So I agree, (pure) realism seems to be just a show of technical skills. With this in mind, could that be why its not a major focus in fine arts?

brianvds How do we decide, after all, which art is "important"? What do we mean by important art? Art that is considered such by obscure academics, or art that actually influences society?

Important is used vaguely here. What is the most popular movie? Avatar. Would it make the top ten best movies ever made in any movie critic's list? most likely not. So Avatar may be important because its the highest grossing movie in the world, but its not important in the intellectual revelation realm.

to me it seems like you're really putting down academics in your post. I think their opinions is validated since its educated (not obscure) opinion (and its also diverse opinion, you're generalizing the academic circle when they don't even all agree on the same things)

[Craig D]

that is not what I'm asking however. Not for an art history lesson, but I'm wondering why today this sentiment exists.

Things exist today because of what happened yesterday. You can't understand why art is as it is now without knowing some art history.

[nauvice]

Things exist today because of what happened yesterday. You can't understand why art is as it is now without knowing some art history.

this isn't about understanding art, but understanding the sentiments of. Today. Not how it happened yesterday that defines today, I get that already. Anyway, bcarman's post was sound, so I'm not really looking for an answer anymore.

[Craig D]

this isn't about understanding art, but understanding the sentiments of. Today. Not how it happened yesterday that defines today, .

Todays sentiments only arise because of yesterdays.

[alesoun]

Realism is definitely dead. It was killed by Captain Custard wielding a commode seat in Lady Broomhandle's atelier.

Damnit, Furball! I can't pass on any gossip without you broadcasting it!

Realism dead? Have you seen this guy's work?
http://www.robertmacmillan.co.uk/portfolio.html

Friend of mine has a theory that any time we hit a depression/recession, realism comes to the fore. Guess we'll see soon enough...

[Nezumi Works]

I killed realism.

But I did not shoot the deputy.

[Ilaekae]

Yes you did. I have pictures...

[nauvice]

Todays sentiments only arise because of yesterdays.

I understand. What I am saying though, is that history explains how things are today, but not why it ought to be still the same today. For example, if I asked someone's opinion on an artform, and their answer starts with "well the artists of the past....", I feel like that's a cop-out answer, or a settling answer. If all artists settled for "that's how its like in the past" instead of challenging why its still like this today, there would never be a revolution.

[Nezumi Works]

Yes you did. I have pictures...

I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that restaurant!

[Lmharker]

There's a breed of students which thrives through academic training. For them it's difficult to find this in many programs or as an alternative.

Realism can't really die. Works/movements which eschew what academic training demands have drawn huge attention recently. Some have a critical/negating/destructive edge. Education seems to lean towards it.

Some people don't see academic training as a limitation and want it, but rigorous dedicated instruction of this kind is a bit rarer - which is a shame IMO.

The worst criticism for realist paintings is 'unoriginal', 'too boring'.

[bhanu]

bhanu, you are mainly touching upon the general aesthetics that covers most of the atelier arts, and I feel that (based on the art I see you make, and the artists you like) you are slightly biased to images that are "violent", "angular" and exiting in treatment. Not saying that there is anything bad about this kind of work (quite the contrary), but these are not elements that exists outside the grasp of 'aquired' skill.


And, artistic intentions aside, if the artist is not 100% sincere with his or her vision, the work has the same potential of contrivance as any ARC approved contemplation on beauty.

Well sincerity is whats it all about, isnt it?
Even when doing a post-modernist piece. Thats why i think Duchamps urinal worked and so many people who try to hack it liek that fail, Duchamp had a point to make and he was sincere about it.

Obviously the artists I dig have the qualities that can be acquired, I am in the process of aquiring those qualities myself.
But Again, with the artists I love, its their integrity and honesty about themselves and whats most important/urgent to them shows.

I Dont know to what degree I myself accomplish it.The urgency of expression that is, but by god when I get up in the morning thats one thing that really want to acieve with my art.

It's the insecurity that has allowed me to adapt to imposed institutionalized concepts and opinions. It's my actions and philosophies that will allow my art to express me.

I dont think its just the insecurity, A normal just does something that being done because he thinks that the right way of doing things. All I ma saying is that with the right kind of teaching, where the Teachers inspires but doesnt overpower his students minds, I am sure that is a hard thing to achieve but, even that person with 'insecurities' can be brave enough to have a voice of his own.

kinda want to draw a parallel to music...Look at Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Charles Ives or Bèla Bartòk. Even though they were considered radical modernists in their time, they all had background training that was based on strict (academic) methodology.That surely didn't kill them.

I have a feeling that they were the exception and not the rule.


But on the whole I would agree with you and Bcarman, people who run the schools arent very progressive(even the schools who support post-modernism).
So the onus really comes down to the individual.

Every artform has a lot of murderers, particularly among the practitioners of that artform.

Practitiones, yes.


Oh btw I also love a lot of ahem non-voilent stuff, K-on and Lucky star are amongst my fav. anime, Ghibli studios make the best animated movies in my opinion, Aurelie who is a dear friend knows I am also her biggest fan. And yes I also like a lot academic artist, who painted simpler stuff, giorgio mirandi and gwen john have been the most underappreciated artists on the planet, IMO.