The return of photo-realism

I met a painter in Wisconsin, who uses an airbrush to produce photo-accurate paintings of (mostly) birds. Work so detailed, I felt I could fluff the feathers of his subjects. He told me that, in his opinion, the purest art in the world is what parents put on the refrigerator door.

Hi Robert, Since 1990, I have looked at and respected photo-realism and realism as an art form. Since then, I have become a student of Dru Blair (a photorealism artist). Others have attested to my artwork getting so much better since applying what I have learned to my artwork. As an artist, I do think that there may not be a higher form of art with painting doing photorealism. Those who may disagree, probably have not taken classes or have achieved this form of art. Photorealism and realism is here to stay. I have seen this form of art dating back to the 1200’s in museums. Artists throughout the ages have struggled to achieve this art form and it still continues to be sought after by many. www.hispainter.com

Viva Sargent, Sorolla and Nicolai Fechin. Notwithstanding Robert’s assertion, I find more excitement in minimalist, expressive art than photographic/photorealism art, to me the latter almost feels like cheating.

What is the difference between photorealism and simply copying a photo? If the artist does not change anything except the size of the work, what’s the point? A photo enlarger can do the same thing better and faster, and even put it on canvas! If the artist is using someone else’s photo, does that make the painting a collaboration? Or if she doesn’t have the photographer’s permission, is that copyright infringement? I appreciate the skill it takes to do superreallistic work, but the artist has to add some changes and judgement to make his point, too.

Robert, thanks for your thoughtful and clear answer to a relevant question. Hurrah for ‘painterly bravura.’

I don’t think photo realism will ever vanish in the art world. I’ve even known some fantastic that are masters of combining abstract backgrounds with vivid realistic images painted in a trompe o’loeil style, and the collectors love it!! Abstract painting, which is deceptively difficult, cannot be masters without many hours of working from nature. You are right, realism is much easier to master than a loose and free style that looks masterful. I agree with deKooning, who put his students in front of a still life, much to their surprise. Thank heaven we are so different in our interests and styles, it makes for an interesting world.

Yes, the passing fancy. I choose the classics to follow, Abstract Expressionism and Yves Saint Laurent

Yes, I’ve noticed the trend also and while I admire the ability it takes to accomplish these paintings, I often find them boring.

Thanks for a timely article Robert. I had heard this a couple of months back that realism had returned. I don’t think it ever left, however I do believe that there needs to still be a line drawn which separates the ‘skilled’ work from the ‘just copied in exact detail.’ Its obvious the differences when one looks at one beside the other. The skilled artist still uses all the foundations of artistic understanding and knowledge. Those works are refined by years of experience and mostly likely hundreds of drawings and paintings. I am in admiration when I see such inspiring works. They vibrate with color, not over-blending of it. There is depth within the shadows that are expressed with subtle layers of color, not flat muddied areas that ‘float.’ Substance and solidity within the subject matter is rendered with brushwork that has been carefully honed over many years of experience. In the hands of a skilled artist who has spent years observing and looking, their personal expression imbues life into their paintings and they are indeed a joy and wonder to behold sometimes.

Photo-realism requires an immense amount of patience and skill. However, is it a work of art if they are copying a photo and not inserting their own touches, their own interpretation, their own feeling about the scene. Is what makes it art the superb drawing and application of paint, or is it a quality to a work that moves you, makes you feel something. It’s not just about tight rendering versus loose and fresh, it’s about a communication between the artist and the viewer. Yes, people like the photo-realism and they admire the skill it took to produce, but you could say the same about a quilt or a crocheted tablecloth. It’s a craft, but is it art? On thing I’ve learned is that, as painters, we are who we are, and we paint the way we paint. I see a lot of wonderful works out there and even if I try to emulate those artists and their work style, my work someone always seems to come back to what I do, which is different. I’ve heard other artists say the same thing. In the end, people like what they like, and as artists, we have to be who we are and paint what’s in our soul. And if we’re lucky, someone else likes it too.

Dear Robert, I graduated from art school in 1988. Since then I have dedicated my life to being a painter. I read art forum, art in America and a few other arty magazines that seem to keep me current in what is happening in the art world. I go to as many galleries as I can, although I seem to avoid the “openings”. I have seen it all come and go; Art of the absurd, portraiture, light and video installations and multi-media up the wazoo! What I find interesting is after a while, there is a pattern. When the economy tanks, the art world fills up with higher quality works. When we are not hearing that the sky is falling, suddenly all this sloppy work is selling for a fortune. The thing about the school of realism, is most of it is about technique. First of all, it is usually done from a photograph and often a photo not taken by the artist (everyone is different though). The subject matter becomes so removed when it has gone through the eye of a photographer and then the eye of an artist. When I look at a piece of art, I want to know what the artist is trying to communicate to me. All of this hyper-realism and making it look like a photograph, although impressive in it’s technique, is really not strong communication when it comes to being an artist. “Oh these pieces take several months to produce” is a comment you will hear at a gallery when viewing these pieces. Should the length of time to create really dictate what is and isn’t a good piece of art? I do believe that doing good quality work is essential for creating works that people will respond to. But over time, it is still what the artist is communicating in their works that will be the lasting quality people want. Then again, that is just me…John Ferrie

I am enthralled by the sublime renderings of Sharon Knettell. While Degas himself would long and generously applaud her accomplishments, her own words, “economy and freshness”, are apt descriptions of her amazing work. Bravo Sharon! Thank you for the springboard you gave Robert to run with…and thank you Robert for giving us Sharon.

Like others above, I admire the skill and patience that the photo-realistic painter exercises. Total opposite of my scrallings. That is my personal taste though… not really big into portraits. I do like stories though and the surreal. I think of Nerdrum or maybe the gorgeous work of Cyn McCurry (on this site) as wonderful examples of objective paintings of the human form.

I am definitely a fan of realism. I am amazed by photorealism; however, I do not attempt it. I recently did a painting from a photo, but made it what the photo said to me initially, which was not as the photographer intended. I believe realism has always been around, but was overshadowed by contemporary art. With the popularity growing for realism, IMO, we finally are seeing some great art.

I visited a new museum in Barcelona ,Spain couple months ago. El Museu Europeu d’Art Modern, opened just in June 2011.It is dedicated to show the figurative art, very realistic ( lots of photo realism) from end of 19th century till now. It ‘s situated in Palau Gomis , 18th century neoclassical building.The art plays so well with the surroundings, and although I am not a big fan of realizm, I was deeply impressed. I think it is worth seeing; just couple steps from Museu Picasso is a great complement to this last one.

Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems that realism and photorealism are being conflated. There is a difference between realism or classical realism and photorealism. Photorealism has usually referred to making a painting from a photograph that looks like a photograph. The current surge in realist painting does not encourage painting from a photograph at all. Realist painters paint and draw from life. I know only one realist painter who uses photographs he takes to work on portraits that he started with studies done from life. Look at the work from the Grand Central Academy of Art, Florence Academy of Art, Gage Academy, Mims Studios, Tony Ryder Studios, Academy of Realist Art, or any of the other centers for realist art. And a photograph is not a direct recording of reality. A photograph has to be developed and that development is done by someone, even if only the programmers who developed JPEG. If a photographer shoots in RAW, the creative process begins from the moment of framing a picture, setting the exposure, and then making choices on what to do with the RAW image, and how to reproduce the image. And, to my eye, a good photograph and a good realist painting look nothing alike.

Quoting from your article, Robert: …” In the last decade, everyone and her sister has been trying to paint like Sargent, Sorolla and Nicolai Fechin. The painting-a-day folks are on it like gangbusters. It’s been Impressionism all over again. The tightening up that we’re witnessing is, in part, a reaction to this “fresh painting” trend…” I tried to emphasize “tried to paint” in the above quote because I think that is at the very bottom of this issue. What I see in the “trends” that come and go are 1) some innovators who have gone against the current trends and who make an even newer trend (they used to be called avant garde) and 2) the wannabe famous/rich others who crowd in behind someone who has succeeded in capturing some rich entity’s support, and they want some of the money. If this sounds curmudgeonly, it may well be Scrooge-like bah humbug…but if we are trying to find out what the latest fashion in art sales is and rushing to follow … aren’t we discounting our own visions? I think part of the definition of an artist is original vision and original expression of that vision. If my vision is photorealism, then I should pursue it with all my heart. If my vision is impressionism (and it is) then I will not suddenly aspire to be a photorealist painter just because that what’s “in.” We should check every day to see what our art muse is saying. If you are looking at sales first, you will maim your muse.

“. . . it seems that realism and photorealism are being conflated. There is a difference between realism or classical realism and photorealism.” Absolutely true, but I’d like to make a further distinction between “realism” in general and “classical realism.” Realism, as it is understood today, is a broad category describing representational art. Our understanding of realism has shifted from the 19th century French definition: “Realism often refers more specifically to the artistic movement, which began in France in the 1850s. Realism in France appears after the 1848 Revolution. These realists positioned themselves against romanticism, a genre dominating French literature and artwork in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Seeking to be undistorted by personal bias, Realism believed in the ideology of objective reality and revolted against the exaggerated emotionalism of the romantic movement. Truth and accuracy became the goals of many Realists. Many paintings depicted people at work, underscoring the changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution and Commercial Revolutions.” Today we include classicism and romanticism under the umbrella of realism. There has been a recent tendency, as Sharon pointed out, to think of realism as synonymous with highly rendered art with classical subject matter or references from artists who have undergone rigorous training in one of the many ateliers. Actually, realism is NOT a style per se. There is also painterly realism and many other styles of realism. Each realist artist works in his or her own style. To me, realism is art that tells the artist’s story, in a language that utilizes the visible world in a recognizable way.

Could it be that the subject matter is a bit too saccharin?

Some of Grant Wood’s paintings were done with the help of photography. My father’s sister-in-law (his sister’s husband’s sister: Ruth Weller Nelson McCluskey) told me that she had done this secretly for him. She only revealed this when she knew she was dying of ovarian cancer. It was the year of a special recognition of his work in Iowa, including a special stamp. She gave me the pin of the stamp and a book of photos of his paintings that summer.

Hurrah for a return to photo-realism I’m so tired of people who have not gone through the process of perfecting their skills in realism and splashing paint on a canvas selling their work work for millions while we who labor to get the exact shape, values, edges etc. correct receive little recognition. Sorry for my sour-grapes.

Robert: A classic example of an artist who used photography and video as reference was Jack Chambers from London, Ontario. Jack would photograph members of his family is different poses and amalgamate his references into his finished canvas. He did not produce photo realistic paintings but made very good use of photography in the 60’s and 70’s when photography was at a significant low compared to today’s standards.

Mr. Engels described this phenomenon nicely as transformation of the elite into a mass — quality into quantity — Dialectic Materialism. That’s about the only thing I remember from my Marxist studies. I always thought that concept as so naturally beautiful. No one gets to hog the world, transitions just naturally occur and all we can do is embrace them and know that we can’t always be the fashion of the day, but at one time everyone will. Bottom line, long term investors should keep buying any type of art.

As an unabashed realist I find I am increasingly striving for a sense of clarity, depth, call it ‘reality’ in my work. I admire the craftsmanship and patience of those painters who do photo-realism however, I think slavishly copying photographs is not all we can do as painters. A Montana artist whose work I greatly admire, Clyde Aspevig said “The more I painted the details out, the more real the paintings looked to me” [quoted in Southwest Art, Feb. 1991]. It seems to me the essence of the real is to be found through the painter’s subjectivity and interpretation of the world as perceived by the senses and not by the mere replication of a photographic image which is already one or two steps removed from that reality.

When I hear such questions I always wonder, what this has to do with the person’s art? Self-awareness of the market and how that may affect sales is of course something to be aware of. Ideas to explore in your own work MAY or MAY not be appropriate. At the end though isn’t your art a reflection of how you perceive the world? A communication of emotion or of fresh ideas? There can be other reasons for hyper realism as well. Modern movies and television are going to high definition, and three dimensional. You can even get three dimension at home now. Perhaps current popular culture’s trends toward high definition and 3D are impacting collectors and therefore painters – or painters and therefore collectors…. a chicken and egg discussion there. I use digital differently and understand that I’m somewhat out of step with both painting and photographic trends and know that when the economy is soft sales are soft too.

Although I receive and execute portrait commissions, I am by no means a successful portrait artist. When I am able to paint people loosely, please me and please my customers, then I will consider myself successful. I tell my customers, if it’s a photographic likeness you want, you need to go to a photographer. I’ve never had a customer walk away when I say these words. Yesterday, I had reason to do a very tight watercolor. Years ago I had a workshop teacher who exclaimed, “That’s not painting!” I tend to agree with him. Tight painting for me is a yawn. I find myself taking more breaks, getting up for more coffee, answering more emails. Tight painting doesn’t put me anywhere near the zone. Photo realistic painting is to impressionism what a ballroom waltz is to Argentine tango. Once you’ve done tango, the waltz seems stilted, controlled and oh so dull. Give me the passion, the sexiness and the bravura of the tango, thank you very much.

I tend to like paintings and people the same …fun, lively AND realistic.

Robert, I think you are absolutely right about hyper-realism. I, for one, am sick to death of “impressionistic” painting I see so much of. I am tried of the vignette look, the unfinished looking portraits, the drippy backgrounds…the messy look of “art” of recent times. I came out of art school at a time when this neo-Impressionism was coming on in full force. In fact, this is how I was taught to paint! Because I am not great technical painter, I never sought realism of any kind because I could not achieve it. I looked for something more lyrical, painterly, artistic and fresh in my work. Hyper-realism is nothing more than a technical feat, to my mind, and I have taken some instruction in it. If you want a photo, take one. If you want a painting, have a painting…a real painting. Surely there is a lot of room for something unique between realism and slopping paint on a canvas, and certainly the ability to create an audience for it, and creating that audience is what needs work, not recreating the art.

Photo-realism is nothing more than what the precursors to realism dreamed of becoming: nature duplicators. I draw the line between skill and artistry and photo-realism is but a skill. I.e. given enough time to move paint around until it fools the eye… or extreme trompe l’oeil. Now, as an exercise it is quite valuable but let’s not make art out of it. Let me reiterate that photo-realism is but an imitative technique with no artistic value except tedious craftsmanship.

I was shocked and amazed when I saw the projection process for the first time (in 2004) and actually thought to my self that it was cheating of some sort or a few steps removed from the creative process but have gotten into debates with other artists including my instructor Ron Libbrecht about using a photograph to paint from versus a live scene. However, I had to put away my judgements and psychological projections (pun intended) and come back around to the most comfortable position of “to each, one’s own creative process.” I can enjoy a photo-realistic painting as much as any other style or technique.

I, too, have noticed a preponderance of hyper-realist paintings making it into shows and winning awards. And the galleries seem to be selling them. But the wisdom that is handed down from master to apprentice is, “Follow your heart.” I can paint in a realistic manner, too, but frankly, it is tedious work. If I’d wanted tedium, I would have become an accountant. I prefer the energy of the plein air brush stroke – intuitive, sometimes wrong but easily corrected. I do, however, admire the perspicacity and persistence of the hyper-realist craftsman. Sometimes I even admire the painting, but that is rare. So many of these works are uninspired and derivative. Are the painters chasing the dollar? Perhaps.

I quite agree with your assessment of the current trends toward extreme photo-realism, and I am as awed as anyone by these that I see. But now this last letter of yours puts my arm squarely in the slamming car door! :+{ I’m now 82, and spent my early, art years drawing realistically, as many do, even winning an Honorable Mention when I was 17, with a pencil profile of one of my Mom’s piano pupils. The drawing was quite free, too, and I still think it is remarkably good, for any age. I’m amazed that I could do it. Then I became a musician, then spent more years in Modern Dance, with 19 years in that field, ending in 1968 having established my own school and dance company in San Francisco. I stayed quiet for 5 years, doing no art, but with Nature and Zen practice as my deep preoccupations. Gradually I returned to the art world via western calligraphy, now still known internationally for my art and teaching. I was invited to teach workshops internationally, and still do tutor a bit for anyone who comes near me, for free. But since about 1997 my focus has been on painting. In calligraphy I did learn a lot, including study from the world figures doing workshops near me. I learned to do classic gilding and illumination. I can draw well and realistically, and I still regularly sketch people, landscapes and anything else in sight. But….I grew up in San Francisco during the height of the Ab-Ex painters, absorbing all that that entailed, including the “Door to the Orient” attitudes in San Francisco. I do consider myself a natural child of that art, and now it is how I prefer to paint, though I certainly can do realism. All my other art forms have left their marks on my work, so that now my paintings turn out to be a synthesis of them. I love black and white alone, and one whole group is in ink on paper. Right now a scroll-mounted piece of this kind is about to come home from a group show in Thailand, although those folks have other things to think about right now, with all the awful flooding there. The rest of my work tends to be oil (and sometimes acrylic) on canvas, in the AB-Ex category. This is a really “hard sell” now, and worse in this stumbling economy. I don’t paint to sell, so I just keep painting, and will do this till I die, though I am frequently ill enough to go to the hospital. I just come back and paint again. It (and my dear husband, Pete) are what keep my heart going. But It is hard to be painting non-objectively now, and your comments that “the realists are tired of” this kind of work is a concern. Not seriously, since I know you are quite broad-minded in your appreciations of things. Still…..My hand is hurting in that car door! Can you give us “others” a bit of hope?

On the subject of tight realism in art, one style is favored in one competition and the other styles have their exhibitions. One of my works won an award in the Art Renewal Center’s International Salon a few years ago, and I am very thankful that they exist. It is important that we have more attention and venues for this kind of work, which was lacking for so long. While this flavor of realism may be making a comeback, of course it has never really gone away since its inception hundreds of years ago. I don’t think artists engaged in making this art are reacting to all the loosely rendered art of the world as much as simply making the work that wants to be expressed by his or her artistic sensibilities. When I was in school many years ago there was much pressure to stop short of a complete statement or to “make it look contemporary” by any number of gimmicks, so perhaps it takes a certain determination to carry it through, if that is what one wants to express. If all we saw was art done with “economy and freshness” it would be boring and then something wonderfully closely observed would thrill us, and vice versa. We thrive on variety. Referring to history, I appreciate Sorolla, Sargent, Fechin and other bravura-brushstroke-type painting as well as Bouguereau, Moran and Church. If it was easy to do tight realism you would find more people doing it, but it is impossible to turn out this work in a day. As to process, one can make super-realistic art or loosely-rendered art whether using photos or looking at life, still life set-ups, or the landscape. If the end product looks like a photograph it can look dead. Life shows brilliance far beyond photography and paintings can be closer to life. (Of course skilled photographers can do much beautiful art with their medium, too.) It doesn’t matter what the source material is, it is the response of the artist. Looking deeply and carefully at something that we have an emotional reaction to and rendering it with skill and with quiet patience is just as valuable as ego-driven expressionistic brushwork and “mark-making”. The important thing is whether the end product has that “magic” that gives it power.

Given Sharon Knettell’s comments about photo-realism, I expected her paintings to be much more loose and painterly. Her work is beautiful and well-rendered, but to me it is pushing photo-realism. What has happened to paintings that are as much about the paint as they are about the picture? Yes, the Sargents, Sorollas and Fechins. I would paint like that if I could! (And I have tried. Unfortunately, I always end up coming back to my blended, boring old ways.)

Thanks for posting this interesting question and your response. As a photographer, I have been fascinated over the last few years by the increase in the number of paintings that are so obviously based on photographs and by the hyperrealism of some of the work. What’s troubling to me is that, somehow, by turning a photograph into a painting it becomes ART, no matter how banal the subject. I’m pretty sure that if I tried to exhibit an original photograph that was the source of the painting, it would be dismissed as uninteresting. And rightly so. I can appreciate the painter’s skill in producing such work (at least I did until I saw your comments about painters using digital projection) but is that really sufficient to elevate a boring subject? I’m not here to plead the case that we should stop treating photography as a poor cousin of painting and that it should be accepted as art – that issue was resolved long ago. I’m simply questioning whether every photographic subject becomes art simply because it is rendered as a painting, not as a photographic print. Thanks again – looking forward to the discussion on this.

Reality is a womb. Where are the people who are not boring and predictable, and so terribly terribly conventional ? Where are the risk takers, the grand schemers, the producers of elegant variety ? Who are they, those who can still do something that might shock the lesser mortals ? Who can still commit the sensational without being ashamed in the morning after ? I never want to see another trite landscape, wonderfully rendered and so clean ! I’m tired of the same old studio nudes, faithful, realistic and classical posed. When has there ever been a still life, still alive ? Find for me the artists, who are not merely qualified technicians. Let me see alive again, to thrive on the uncommon, the irregular, the impossible made probable. That’s what art and poetry are meant to do. They are not to celebrate the ordinary. Whatever your calendar age, if you can’t dream beyond the scope of your own limited securities, you are already old. Reality is a womb. When do we leave being borne, to again be born ?

Karla, “Reality is a womb…” The origin of renewal. An ancient call ever vital, your thoughts are as Samuel Johnson said of Shakespeare’s characters…”rammed with life.” “Ripeness is all” is a call to the art of perception and the perception by authentic sense. You have that sense in spades, and have this day of mine just made. With deepest gratitude and love through time, I receive and reflect your wondrous truth.

Most styles of art have their detractors, some more justifiably than others. Over the course of my art career so far, I have worked with conviction in various modes and pursued subject matter from landscape to abstract. All have been part of the journey and one always seems to flow naturally from the other, apparent perhaps only to me. A few years ago I was embarking on a series of floral paintings and decided to take a course in Botanical Art at the Royal Ontario Museum. For someone who never was particularly interested in meticulously depicting detail, I found that I was drawn in by the process of carefully rendered form and that it served to slow me down in this fast paced environment we live in. It became a window to another world. I followed that path and did a number of paintings of floral subjects, in a non-traditional botanical style. This lead to a workshop in academic realist still life painting, which further captivated me. I began to portray the quiet moments in the world. It is not without great struggle that I have embraced this style, but nonetheless find it stimulating and challenging. It is good know that I am still learning and growing as I progress in my career. I hope to move along, now, and try to ease up a little in the adherence to realism and find ways to personalize my paintings to resonate with my life still further.

Thank you! Thank you for being a lovely painter, writing well, thinking things through, having opinions, and sharing great quotes. I value you. Kapaa, Kauai,

Robert – Degas said ‘it isn’t how to paint, it is what to paint!’ This perhaps gets to the bottom of the discussion. From years of readings (and painting) I don’t think he meant subject matter in a strict sense – he was no more a painter of dancers or bathers than anyone else – he was a painter of space and light and form and movement. He found his subjects through these things and thus technique (media, mark making, point of view, editing) was born. No artist of quality starts with “I’m going to be a photo-realist / expressionist / impressionist / etc.” They instead study and practice and look and listen – and over time find the reasons for painting intrinsic to their experience and struggle to make the work reach out to the reasons. This puts the soul, if you will, into the work – no matter th style. Tell me what style Rembrandt or van Gogh or Degas or Eakins or Hopper or, yes, even de Kooning made paintings in – I’ll tell you they were magical because they took the entire core of their being and poured into their work – they discovered the ‘what’ of Degas quote and they left no stone unturned in their ferocious effort to get there. We know Eakins and Degas referenced photography – they even believe Vermeer used an early camera obscura – what matters is what comes out. Slavish copying will never be as powerful – the camera is monocular and limited to a frozen moment which buries the shadows and gives all things equal intensity. The human binocular and flickering vision, coupled with the precious imperfection of the human hand is where art lives – there aren’t any shortcuts.

Although there may those who use other and trickery to do their art, I do take umbridge at the seeming hatred toward artists who can paint in an extreme photo-realist manner. They may not use the photo to reproduce their work just as a reference. There are highly skilled artists out there who see the world differently than those who see just color and patterns. I think there is way too much made over technique and style. I am a photo-realist painter and all my life I have struggled against a bias art world. I was told that I had to paint impressionist style – no one would teach the basics of traditional painting. I had to learn on my own with the help of a few books I could find. I think that a lot of this bias is just jealousy for the most part. I think there is room for everyone and all manner of styles but folks, let’s face it, I am seventy years old and I can’t remember a time when it was cool to be a realist. Let’s all just do our thing and leave the others alone.

I agree with many of the comments here, particularly those that say, “live and let live”, re style etc. I am what I call an expressionistic artist, and I do get a lot of positive feedback, notably from fellow artists, but sales aren’t always brisk. However, it is coming from a real place within, I am having fun, and so will continue to paint in this way. That said, with regard to the realism and so on: it does seem to garner much awe and wonder on the part of non-painters, particularly, and while it obviously takes much skill and patience, I should think, I often hear other artists say, “they want to be looser” in their painting! I have been at workshops where fellow students have come with the goal of learning how to loosen up and make freer strokes, rather than being careful and measured with each stroke. I think it takes a lot of guts to paint freely and let the paint flow. It is a different concept to capturing a thing exactly and using small, fine brushes. Both of course, are valid, but…there seems to be an understanding that, while the exacting technique of realism is amazing, it is a challenge and takes nerve and confidence to just put that paint on fearlessly! So here’s to both ways and all things in between. Paint the way that makes you happy. I like my expressionistic style and will probably continue with it. I am always experimenting….so will see what the future brings! Cheers, everybody!

Individual taste is just that: individual. Few people, especially artists, enjoy more than a small percentage of what they see in museums, galleries and art books. However, I find examples in every medium and style that are appealing to me. The artist must follow his/her muse and is compelled to paint the images that interest him/her. If fine detail is the interest, then that is what he or she must paint. I began with realistic watercolors of plants, birds, and insects (not from photos) because these subjects fascinated me. I found photos allowed me a larger range of subjects which I could snap on the fly. While traveling it is not easy to sit in front of a subject drawing or painting for hours or days. One must take a photo. When painting from photos became boring, I then tried to alter the lighting, composition and I added other elements. Some turned into surrealism. Now my interest has turned to a little more impressionistic painting, in oil. The artist must follow his/her interests as he/she develops. I still appreciate some realists and photorealists. I cannot find fault with any well-executed and interesting art.

It is unfortunate that you put down the diversity in the artistic expression to tell us that people like me, who use photo-realism to convey an emotion and vibrancy unlike photography, are a trend that will soon pass. We have our place in the art world just like the abstract, expressionist, video and conceptual artists. Joanne Teasdale

Those who dismiss realist art as dull or banal by virtue of its style are no better than those who invalidate abstract pieces with clichés of four-year-olds who might produce better work. Who is to say that a bold stripe of orange acrylic is more worthy of praise than a carefully rendered leaf? Do they both not celebrate expression in their own distinct ways? I’ve been deeply moved by classically rendered realist pieces, just as I have been by nonrepresentational art. Conversely, I’ve also gazed upon works of both types that have left me completely apathetic. Different art speaks to different people for different reasons at different times. There’s room enough for all types, even when the pendulum of fashion swings away from someone’s personal preference.

No artist is going to change his or her style just because there is a new “kid” on the block. All things must pass.

Comparing photo realism with most other types of art is always good for an argument from my experience. All concerned end up in hopeless disagreement. All it does is raise the blood pressure.

I think some people have confused photo realism with uncritical “copying” of photographs. Many artists use photos as aids, subject matter, or reference for fine details of a subject. I volunteer in a gallery that displays a lot of photographic works. I find myself constantly defending the photographer as much an “artist’ as well as a painter is. Most photo realists do not copy photographs slavishly. They use them only as a “starting point”, or reference. All works of art have the creator’s stamp, a particular view, a way to summon the viewers emotions. Personally I have little chance to get out and paint plein air, because of physical infirmities. Instead I search out close by subjects that intrigue me, ideally I do a sketch at the same time. The sketch provides the “soul” , for the finished piece and hopefully captures my emotions. When I discuss my paintings with viewers I do not like to say I used a photograph as my starting point. One person told me once “You shouldn’t copy photographs, you must paint out of your head”. It never fails to amaze me how some non artist viewers feel that they have the right to tell you what you are doing wrong!

I do both loose plein air work and photo realism work. I get more satisfaction out of the photo realism. It is that wonderful pushing an pulling of tones to get it just right that puts me in a wonderful zone and gives such satisfaction. But it does take time, so saying that it takes less work is ridiculous? If I use a photograph I expound upon the subject to intensify colors, liven up the shadows, eliminate distractions and zero in on a chosen focal point, which one doesn’t get from the photo itself. The goal is to make it better. To me this is being creative. As an artist I never copy exactly from the photo. What fun would there be in that! I also only paint from my own composed photo shots.. If you paint from life occasionally, you will learn how to make photographed objects look dimensional. As for projectors, have you ever tried to project an object on a canvas or paper? Unless I’m missing something or have used a really poor projector, it is impossible. Only shaky lines result. Believe me, you can get an almost exact likeness just by drawing free hand, if you have enough skill and patience. Where did this myth that super realism artists use projectors pop up and why is it spreading? Maybe by the same people who think the pyramids couldn’t possibly be made by humans. For some artists what is important in a painting is the beauty of the brush stroke or the pen mark.. That is their joy in painting the picture. Many collectors agree For other artists the joy is in portraying the beauty of the object itself, which is important. They want to portray nature as they see it unadorned by brush strokes. They want to celebrate the joy of the visual life they see around them and freeze it in a moment of time, whether its a flower’s soft petals or the play of light in glass reflections or pond ripples. And some collectors love to see this in a painting. Each individual has their own idea of what beauty is and what art is. Why quibble about it? Why belittle people for it?

Like HD, Home Theatre, Digital Sculpture, Wiki, Google…, people are fascinated by the extraordinary details and abundance of info. Is it going to pass? Maybe not “pass” but I think it will find some equilibrium point. And, as many of earlier commentators said, people find refreshing “realism” regardless of whether classical or photo. I did. So am I pursuing classical training now.