Photorealism - controversial

The Visualization of art is way different from its perception. There are several rules and norms to affiliate an art form and to categorize it under prevailing/new art movements. This process becomes more and more difficult when the particular art is subjected with a controversy or a long running debate. Photorealism, have similar fate. In simple words It’s an art to create or replicate a subject to make it appear real (almost like a photograph). Off course there’s lots of hard work and talent, that ignite the magic (and I am a real big fan). Although there were several points put up by many critics, discarding this genre from the art category. Debate on both sides are on fire and seriously non-conclusive.

In a traditional sense, drawing has been regarded as an imitative art, meaning that the artist usually creates images based on real things. Of course, this notion can be transposed from simple copying of entire scenes to creating a completely original assembly from bits and pieces of real/unreal things. But, to really confuse someone’s mind about whether the image in front of them is a mere photograph of an existing scene, or actually an uncanny drawing, the art style would be Photo-realism. Now, for a second, let us examine the actual term “uncanny”. It was coined back in 1906 to describe something in a bizarre state, perceived in terms of its uncertainty, but it took Sigmund Freud to attach the meaning to the word we use today. 

Uncanny is a concept of a particular moment when something is both familiar and alien at the same time, creating a feeling of discomfort. This is why photorealism is most often described with this particular word, because the best of the works from this style definitely blur out the lines between familiar and alien by creating something so close to reality that it actually perplexes the viewer. Before the stunning CGI artwork we have nowadays, there were artists who created paintings by hand, only by looking at a photograph. So let’s go back to the ’60s and ’70s, when Photorealism started emerging, and see why it received much positive and negative feedback from the art world, how it developed through the years and at which point “real” becomes “too real”…

Photorealism- Art or Not art

Arthor: Bob Lansroth

http://www.widewalls.ch/photorealism-art-style/

Whether it’s art or not, and where the line can be drawn between something considered as art or not is quite difficult to differentiate. For example, if someone with poor drawing abilities would draw a cat, it wouldn’t be considered as art, because it obviously doesn’t look much like a cat due to the fact it is badly drawn. Now, would it be art if that person could draw much better? Probably yes, now, since realism is often praised in the world of art, is there a point at which drawing becomes too real to be considered art? Of course, if you would take a photocopy or a scan, it wouldn’t be called art; it would just be a mechanical reproduction. But, once you include the human factor, a photorealistic image, made by hand and not by technological means of duplication, it magically becomes art. So, is it “just” the great technical skill that is enough for something to be considered as a piece of art, or does it require something more than incredible accuracy and immense drawing technique?

Many would argue that the technical skill can be surpassed by a decent color photocopier or a computer, thus avoid using the word art in such context, but this discussion brings us to an analogy of photography. If photography is merely capturing an image of what is already there, where is the art in that? It is right there in the photographer’s perspective, the exact choice made by the person wielding the camera in what to capture and from which angle, moment and perspective. If a person creating a photorealistic recreation of a photograph doesn’t have that “artistic” input of a photographer, then what is artistic about the process? Some would say even those renditions are not strict interpretations of photographs; instead, they incorporate additional, often subtle, pictorial elements to create the illusion of a reality which does not actually exist, or cannot be perceived by the human eye. In the end, as in many things in art, and life in general, the final conclusion remains behind the individual perspective. The answer lies in the eye of the beholder, whether you find the artistic strain within it, or just admire it for the sheer talent, Photorealism is remarkable and amazing in its own right.

At the end, I would like your suggestions and views on this topic. 

#let’s_talk_art