PDA

View Full Version : Is art going back to 'realism'?


paperclip
03-11-2005, 01:53 PM
From my observations, it looks as if it is. Damien Hirst et al are starting to get back into classical reproduction methods.
Personally, I'm all for it. I love art and creativity, but it sure is nice to have a good solid real
base, like the stuff I see here daily at CGTALK.
What do you think?

bonestructure
03-11-2005, 03:44 PM
It is and it isn't. Art is going in all directions. Right now, 3D, to me, seems focused on three styles, Photorealism, Impressionism and toon. A lot of arists are looking for a way to stand out and be different. I, personally, am trying to develop a prerapahaelite style. You'd think it would be easy in 3D, but it's not. I do my share of working toward photorealism. I'm certainly not there yet, just working in that direction, since preraphaelism is somewhat realistic, but not. Toon rendering is hugely popular now too. Just witness the boom in 3D animation we've had in the last few years. It comes down to mostly being what you want to do. 3D lends itself to photorealism, so that's what a lot of people want to do. It's harder to step out of that box and do something truly different. I think one needs to make a distinction in realism, though. There's photorealism and what one might call representational art. It 'represents' realism without being photorealistic, somewhere between photorealism and impressionism. That's where art is headed for, if anywhere, I think. Or hope.

EricLyman
03-11-2005, 04:34 PM
Not sure where the art world is gravitating to, but I can at least speculate that the reason you see lots of realism on CGTalk is because that's typically what aspiring 3D artists try to emulate. Once an artist gains the skills to produce lifelike renderings (on a computer, or on canvas) then they have artistic license to begin working in surrealism, abstract expressionism, etc. Take Picasso for example.

jud
03-11-2005, 04:46 PM
It does not matter Where art is going, it will still be called ART, exercise your creativity and just create, if it looks real, then it looks real, if it looks abstract, it looks abstract, it really does not matter as long as what you have created is true to the subject of what is created.

Do not debate, just create!! Let the mind see and the hand follow!

EricLyman
03-11-2005, 04:57 PM
I don't think anyone was trying to debate the definetion of art, just where it's headed.

paperclip
03-11-2005, 05:30 PM
It makes sense in a way, doesn't it....a fusion of realism and abstract, it was kind of obvious that people would get bored with lines and spheres and start wanting modern versions of rubens and caravaggio? I think it could be amazing if done properly and I'm sure there are people out there who could produce things to such a standard. MY breath is bated...

dotTom
03-11-2005, 05:53 PM
Not sure where the art world is gravitating to, but I can at least speculate that the reason you see lots of realism on CGTalk is because that's typically what aspiring 3D artists try to emulate. Once an artist gains the skills to produce lifelike renderings (on a computer, or on canvas) then they have artistic license to begin working in surrealism, abstract expressionism, etc. Take Picasso for example.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. First you learn the rules and imitate reality, then you break the rules. As in CG, as in music, as in martial arts.

EricLyman
03-11-2005, 06:10 PM
Yeah... I didn't think of appling that to music, but it's valid... Philip Glass comes to mind. Trent Reznor too.

Kanga
03-11-2005, 06:34 PM
They call it realism,... but its much more than that,... its actually better because it has been stuffed with in the right way.

I am a big fan of traditionalism,.... also because it hasn't been mainstream for so long and apart from getting a kick out of it it made me kind of underground :) Like 16 year olds that dig Dylan today.

Like classical music it will never die and I used to think all contemporary art was KRAP!!
Not so sure now. I hated Jackson Pollock with a vengance but saw that film recently where his work was shown and thought to myself: "now there are some pretty kool textures"!

EricLyman
03-11-2005, 07:20 PM
3D lends itself to photorealism, so that's what a lot of people want to do.

Are you sure? I think I disagree. I'd say that 3D doesn't lend itself to any particular style, just like drawing. You have people that can draw really amazing, realistic portraits of people and places, and then you have other peope who can't do much with realism but have a knack for cartooney images.

I agree that lots of people want to do photorealism, but mainly because they're trying to master the medium. If anything, I would say that 3D 'lends' itself to less realistic renders, simply because it's less work for the artist. Trust me, you have to really work to get photorealism. More rendertime for photorealism as well.

erlik
03-11-2005, 07:50 PM
Had realism ever really died? Remember that you had hyper-realism in painting not so long ago.

DEVARSHY
03-11-2005, 07:56 PM
hOPE EVERYONE HERE HAS VISITED

WWW.ARTRENEWAL.COM (http://www.ARTRENEWAL.COM)

Ain't it the biggest movement in favour of academic Classicism and realism anywhere ?
HOpe for sunny days ahead....rid of the Paint Splashers!

jeffthomann
03-11-2005, 08:54 PM
To me... one of the, if not the greatest achievement of the 20th Century, as far as art goes, is the acknowledgement that a painted surface is a painted surface. That to me is realism. It acknowledges that the paint is real, that the canvas (or whatever other painted surface(s)) are real. Realism, in the traditional sense, makes the viewer pretend that a canvas can be a "window" in to another reality... In truth that's a pretty psychotic sort of imaginative idea. Yes, some great paintings have been done in that sort of way in the past, but then some great works of art that stray as far away from that idea have been done too. There's a lot to minimalism and other types of artwork that were created in the 20th Century. That sort of philosphy probably will start working it's way more and more in to cg related art in the future.

baaah888
03-11-2005, 08:56 PM
it's always been realism and its always been abstract, etc etc, its just the more famous artists are starting to turn a littlle more towards realism recently, this trend will change when they and the critics decide it's stale again, then you'll see more used condoms and packs of crisps being called "art" which if im honest, if someones stupid enough to buy it as art then it is technically art. I don't like the whole famous artist thing, it's far to pretencious, and your reputation is worth more than the quality of your work which isn't the way it should be really.

Darktwin
03-11-2005, 10:02 PM
baaah888 it's always been realism and its always been abstract, etc etc, its just the more famous artists are starting to turn a littlle more towards realism recently, this trend will change when they and the critics decide it's stale again, then you'll see more used condoms and packs of crisps being called "art" which if im honest, if someones stupid enough to buy it as art then it is technically art. I don't like the whole famous artist thing, it's far to pretencious, and your reputation is worth more than the quality of your work which isn't the way it should be really.

I agree with what you have said here, since end of WWI and the dawn of the modern art movements, there has always been those who remained traditional and those who moved away from the classical realism/romanticism styles. But unlike the contemporary art movements and before, most successful artist had a strong base or well developed fundamentals in the human figure or life observation in drawing and painting. I feel after doing the same thing for so long, they felt like expressing themselves and their livelihoods in there work which became the modern art movements.

I can't really say the same about the abstract work in the post modern era today. I feel most of it is crap imo. I believe foundation is needed for a certain level of creditability. But its all subjective so it depends on the individual eye of the viewer.

sundialsvc4
03-11-2005, 11:47 PM
In many ways, art has always been strongly influenced by the technology of the day. For example, many of the paintings of the so-called "Dutch Masters" were painted with the aid of the camera obscura, and many people since that time have tried to puzzle-out exactly what particular one the artist may have used. There was a very long time when very "technical" paintings were made. In computer-graphics, I believe that we are still in (though, at the end of) this "highly technical" phase.

Ink-and-paint was, strictly speaking, the first art form to be fundamentally transformed by the computer, although the work product did not change (some of the early movies actually printed frames out to celluloid for conventional photography). The last film to be made entirely without computers was Roger Rabbit. Computer-graphics, after being liberated from the CPU-power limitations visible in, say, Tron, rushed right past the computer-cartoon (Toy Story) to the hyper-realism of the digital matte painting and "Photoshop-style" direct manipulation of captured imagery.

I think I'm beginning to see a growing realization that once again the movie audience has raised the bar. The audience is no longer impressed by digital; no longer believes that what it sees is anything but heavily-digitized. (The audience wants drama, story, true cinematography, and maybe, abstract art that (of course) was done digitally. I'm waiting to see the project that will be the 21st century equivalent of Fantasia.) When this happens, digital technology will have come full-circle: no longer the end unto itself, but, like the camera obscura, merely a means to an end.

eyeronik
03-11-2005, 11:52 PM
Not in the sense of returning to the old ways of paintings as those styles are somewhat gone forever and many were just because there was no such thing as the photograph. I admit a lot of modern sculpture art is crap and some return to something that is hard work would be good. Theres still lots of quality work about though.

I think I'm beginning to see a growing realization that once again the movie audience has raised the bar. The audience is no longer impressed by digital; no longer believes that what it sees is anything but heavily-digitized. (The audience wants drama, story, true cinematography, and maybe, abstract art that (of course) was done digitally. I'm waiting to see the project that will be the 21st century equivalent of Fantasia.) When this happens, digital technology will have come full-circle: no longer the end unto itself, but, like the camera obscura, merely a means to an end.

I feel youre mostly wrong. The audience doesn't raise the bar, the artist does and the other artists have to follow them. As if the audience is no longer impressed by digital work, that makes no sense at all given the huge audiences going to animations such as the incredibles. People might not scream out "wow!" but no one ever did. The audience wants the same thing it has for thousands of years and digital work is a progression yes, but coming full circle? what exactly is that meant to mean? a means to an end? so theres nothing after digital? Im not really sure what you are trying to say on the whole, it sounds a bit pretenious really.

CGTalk Moderation
03-11-2005, 11:52 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.