Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is photorealistic art really "art"?

Is photorealistic art really artistic?

  • Yes

  • No

  • It can be.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Aladdin

Aladdin

Well-Known Member
As per the thread title question.

Photorealistic art started in the 60s as a form of painting that looks like a photo. It is not the same as painting from a photo...and some would say it's a controversial form / expression of art because it is so like a photo.

There are artists who use their computer to enhance photographs and produce what looks exactly like a photograph only its in oils on a board.

I don't know that photorealism has much to offer over a photograph.

Even Warhol didn't make his art totally photorealistic.

What do you think?

 
Last edited:
To paraphrase George Dickie's institutional theory of art, the only intrinsic thing common to all pieces of art is that they're called 'art' by people in the art world. No more, no less.

I mostly find photorealistic art boring myself, an empty excercise of skill. But is it art? Yes, because people call it art.
 
ohmyliver said:
To paraphrase George Dickie's institutional theory of art, the only intrinsic thing common to all pieces of art is that they're called 'art' by people in the art world. No more, no less.

I mostly find photorealistic art boring myself, an empty excercise of skill. But is it art? Yes, because people call it art.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably right.
What gets me is that the "art world" dictates what is valuable art and this influences what is seen as art that is valued by a wealthy elite section of society. It's why I like Banksy so much..he gave the finger to the "art world"... when his art self (nearly) destructed at an auction. Although the shredded piece went on to be extremely valuable BECAUSE of the destruction.

I can accept there is tremendous skill in photorealistic art. I appreciate that it is difficult to do and I probably think it is more "artistic" than the invisible sculptures...the thing I don't see is the individual essence of the artist. Maybe that's my problem.

The art world does seem to highly value the invisible sculptures of Salvatore Garau.. his concept is quite clever mind you. The statue's certificate being of value. I can't help but wonder what Da Vinci would think...looking down on the square tape that surrounds the invisible scupture of a Buddha.
 
All 'giving the finger to the artword'' gestures are doomed. I mean I saw Duchamp's The Shower in the Tate Modern last week. That was designed as a 'f8ck off' statement to the artworld, and yet the artworld absorbed it, and used it as the basis of things like conceptual art.
 
Last edited:
The other issue is that the appature of the eye is different from the appature of camera lenses, so the realism of the artist's eye is different from the realism of the photographer's lens.

There's a really good exhibition at the Tate Modern at the moment (my 10 year old was sadly less impressed) about figurative art in the time of photography ( Capturing The Moment | Tate Modern .
 
I can remember being quite impressed by some of the Photorealist paintings at the Photo-Realism exhibition at the Serpentine Gallery in 1973. I particularly remember a painting by Chuck Close: a black and white portrait about 10 foot high. It might have been this self-portrait. If not it was something very similar. From a distance it looked just like a photo, but close up it was mesmerising.

22544.width-2000.jpg
 
The Godfather is a work of art and that's very photorealistic. They used cameras and projectors to paint moving images with light.

Art is the expression of thought and / or emotional through a medium. Photorealistic pictures are art as just the mere selection of subject is thought.
 
'Art is the expression of thought and / or emotional through a medium' is just too broad a definition though. Are all phone calls art? Are all tweets art? Are all spam emails art? Are all office department weekly catchup emails art?
 
ohmyliver said:
'Art is the expression of thought and / or emotional through a medium' is just too broad a definition though. Are all phone calls art? Are all tweets art? Are all spam emails art? Are all office department weekly catchup emails art?
Click to expand...
Then you have to add intent and context into it.
If it's day to day interaction then no.

If an artist uses Twitter with artistic intent and re-presents it then yes.
Dave Gorman uses internet comments to create what he refers to as found poems. Even though it's comedy I'd also have to say there is an art to it too.
 
Aladdin said:
We may be back to "it's art if someone says it's art".
Click to expand...
It's the only definition that holds water. I did a course at University about theories of aesthetics, and some of them were hillarious. Hume's theory of aesthetics is basically a whole book explaining why his opinions on art mattered more than other peoples. Or Clive Bell's assertion that the definining characteristic of art is that it gives you an 'aesthetic emotion', and then later on defines an 'aesthetic emotion' as something generated by art.
 
Last edited:
so already we've moved significantly away from art being simply 'expression of thought and / or emotional through a medium'.

I've not had a cigarette today and I do realise that I'm being an argumentative arse, but....
 
ohmyliver said:
'Art is the expression of thought and / or emotional through a medium' is just too broad a definition though. Are all phone calls art? Are all tweets art? Are all spam emails art? Are all office department weekly catchup emails art?
Click to expand...
Well if you studied them it would probably be as a B.A. not a B.SC.
 
Photorealistic drawings, paintings etc. absolutely are a form of art. Hell, even actual photography is a form of art. Even though a photographer doesn't need to draw the images their camera produces, they still have the opportunity to configure the camera, choose a subject, maybe adjust the lighting, and so on.

Which is why I would also argue that AI-produced images are also a form of art. Sure, anyone can load up an AI interface and start cranking out images, just like anyone can pick up a camera and start shooting. But there is still scope for artistic intent and expression in the usage of both cameras and image-generating AIs.
 
No, there are very strict standards defining what qualifies as art, and if you turn to Subsection 13, Clause V you'll find photorealistic imagery is explicitly excluded.
 
ohmyliver said:
so already we've moved significantly away from art being simply 'expression of thought and / or emotional through a medium'.

I've not had a cigarette today and I do realise that I'm being an argumentative arse, but....
Click to expand...
Not really. You basically tried to bring 'communication' into it as yes communication is also 'expression of thought and / or emotion'.

Although similar there are distinctions between the two. Art and Communication are seperate but not mutually exclusive.

Art has to be communicated somehow to fulfill its intended purpose.
Communication can be artful but doesn't have to be.
 
Gromit said:
Art has to be communicated somehow to fulfill its intended purpose.
Click to expand...

If I paint 100 paintings and never show them to anyone...have I failed at creating art?

Does a painting have to hang somewhere and be seen for it to be art?

Let's say an artist's intention and purpose is to paint. Say they just love painting. All they want to do is paint....they couldnt give a rats arse if their art works are not bought.
It's still art. Even if it ends up only on their walls.
 
Aladdin said:
If I paint 100 paintings and never show them to anyone...have I failed at creating art?

Does a painting have to hang somewhere and be seen for it to be art?

Let's say an artist's intention and purpose is to paint. Say they just love painting. All they want to do is paint....they couldnt give a rats arse if their art works are not bought.
It's still art. Even if it ends up only on their walls.
Click to expand...
"Art" is very widely defined that way. Do my scribblings never exposed to anyone else but me constitute art?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aladdin
Art Fraud stories.
Replies
0
Views
210
Aladdin
Aladdin
Mumbles274
The 2023 Art Thread
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
237
Views
9K
Humberto
Humberto
Numbers
Street Art/Murals
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
Magnus McGinty
AI Art: The Weirder the Better
Replies
13
Views
925
ATOMIC SUPLEX
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Aladdin
"The Hanging Committee:": thread for amusing tales about arts events.
Replies
6
Views
446
moochedit
moochedit
Back
Top Bottom