Current Events > Anybody else think Hyperrealism and Photorealism are boring and pretentious?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It becomes more a showcase of skill and technique rather than actual artistic creativity.

With the advent of photography, it just seems like an obsolete form of 'art'.
---

Kind of, yeah. It's like the technical death metal of art.
---

It's best done with fantasy stuff in mind.
---

Most art is pretentious. Classical art is basically dead so you get into technique or get weird. I guess I'll take someone who can paint amazingly accurate minute details over some dickweed who smeared paint on a canvas with his ass.

I'm just generally not a fan of most realistic art
---

I agree, but I think some people confuse high degrees of realism with photorealism.

What do you think of these?





Also, there's a hypperrealist artist on Instagram with a big following, but he said that he spends 200 hours on a drawing. That's WAY too much.
---

Vol2tex posted...

I agree, but I think some people confuse high degrees of realism with photorealism.

What do you think of these?





Also, there's a hypperrealist artist on Instagram with a big following, but he said that he spends 200 hours on a drawing. That's WAY too much.

What's their Insta?
---

Ive loved it since Jan Van Eyck
---

Compare those to this, by the hyperrealist artist I mentioned:


---

I mean, yes, it's quite impressive you managed to create a portrait reminiscent of a real life photograph, but at what cost? All that labour just to create something that could've been achieved in less than second with a camera? Seems like a wasted effort and not necessarily a skill that's in high demand nowadays. You would've made decent dough 200+ years ago with that skill.

What do you think of these?

That's different. It's more a study of anatomy with use of shading and value than replicating a photograph. It's more about figure drawing which I've done in the past.
---

PepperoniMaster posted...

I mean, yes, it's quite impressive you managed to create a portrait reminiscent of a real life photograph, but at what cost? All that labour just to create something that could've been achieved in less than second with a camera? Seems like a wasted effort and not necessarily a skill that's in high demand nowadays. You would've made decent dough 200+ years ago with that skill.

What do you think of these?

That's different. It's more a study of anatomy with use of shading and value than replicating a photograph. It's more about figure drawing which I've done in the past.

Agreed. But he and other similar hyperrealist artists seem to be sucessful doing this.

And yeah, those types of realist figure drawings I enjoy much more than the hyperrealist ones.

Here's another realist one I like:


---

goldenBoi45 posted...

Vol2tex posted...

I agree, but I think some people confuse high degrees of realism with photorealism.

What do you think of these?





Also, there's a hypperrealist artist on Instagram with a big following, but he said that he spends 200 hours on a drawing. That's WAY too much.

What's their Insta?

The first two are by danielmaidman, the 3rd is by shane.wolf.artist
---

You see, that portrait, I don't mind. It's realistic and not stylized, but it also doesn't look like you're staring at a photograph.

My grip is more with artists who take a photograph and then try to replicate it as accurate as possible leaving the viewer wondering whether or not is an actual photograph. Something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/user/marcellobarenghi/videos?disable_polymer=1
---

That video isn't loading on my phone, but hyperrealist artists are doing themselves a disservice. They should be adding their own creativity to a drawing.

That's why I like the artists that I posted, they are drawing with an understanding of light, shadow, form, anatomy and can do something interesting with that knowledge in their decision making.
---

The hyperreal stuff where it just looks like a photograph isn't really art to me.

It's interesting that one can tell when some paintings in the 19th century started being done from photographs, but overall the realism in the 19th century was truly amazing:


---

No, I can appreciate the hyperrealistic stuff. It's not my preference, but it can be interesting to me.
---

Master_Bass posted...

No, I can appreciate the hyperrealistic stuff. It's not my preference, but it can be interesting to me.

I especially find it interesting when people copy a photo, then add more detail
---

I don't see how it's pretentious, and i can respect the effort and talent that goes into it.
But i struggle to think of an art style i find less interesting.
---

Vol2tex posted...

Compare those to this, by the hyperrealist artist I mentioned:

That's sick
---

Talk2DaHand posted...

Vol2tex posted...

Compare those to this, by the hyperrealist artist I mentioned:

That's sick

It does take a lot of patience and effort, but it lacks creative artistic decision making.
---

bump
---

As ironic as it sounds, that particular image would've been more artistic had it been an actual photograph. I'm certain photography aficionados would've find more enjoyment in it.

As impressive as it is, it's a mere copy of an already established piece of work down to the last detail. I can't find myself caring too much.
---

It would have been interesting to see the photo used as reference.

It's also great when form is hinted at and not outlined:


---

Yeah I'm not a fan. It seems more like an exercise of technique than something that has anything to say. This is my opinion as someone who's not really much of a visual art person.

It's like how I feel about guitar shredders or really any musical showing off. Your music sucks and I don't care about how many BPMs you can sweep at.
---

16-BITTER posted...

pinky0926 posted...

It's like how I feel about guitar shredders or really any musical showing off. Your music sucks and I don't care about how many BPMs you can sweep at.

This is a bad take.

Being capable of more techniques adds to your compositional bag of tools. You can express things an unskilled player can not.

There are certainly a few bad eggs that spend more effort playing quickly than properly composing, but blanket disapproval of skill is usually sour grapes on the part of the critic.

That's not the point I'm making at all. If you're mastering a bag of chops so that you can use them when needed of course that's fine, and all part of the craft. I'm talking about the guys that make the music about the chops, and not the other way around.

There are a lot of musicians like that. You're just sitting there watching them roll out a bunch of clever tricks they learned and they want you to be impressed by.
---

I wouldn't call it boring or pretentious, but it is something that boils down to "Well, that looks pretty cool. The artist did a great job." and then you move on. You don't really sit there and think or wonder like with other styles, but there are exceptions of course.

I think Pinky's guitar shredder comparison is a good one. Like with the paintings, there are exceptions though.
---

BobanMarjanovic posted...

The hyperreal stuff where it just looks like a photograph isn't really art to me.

Same here. Very much boring & pretentious.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Kind of, yeah. It's like the technical death metal of art.

LMAO-- this is so true.

Great portrait painters will never really go out of style. And I wouldn't exactly say a lot of historically great portrait painters tried to be hyperrealistic at all tbh. The main thing is that they were able to convey the mood/expressions of a subject well.

But yeah, there is just something insanely cool in having a fantastic oil painting portrait done of yourself as a commission.
---

No, I wouldnt call it pretentious, but Im also not a big fan. I respect the skills needed for photo realism, but hyper realism is more interesting to me.
---

My question to you, tc, would be why you assume creativity and originality are what art is.

That is certainly true in our post romantic, modern paradigm. But hasnt always been.

We have to be careful when thinking that how we view art today is how its always been (something the modernists ought to agree with)

masticatingman posted...

Great portrait painters will never really go out of style. And I wouldn't exactly say a lot of historically great portrait painters tried to be hyperrealistic at all tbh. The main thing is that they were able to convey the mood/expressions of a subject well.

But yeah, there is just something insanely cool in having a fantastic oil painting portrait done of yourself as a commission.

Definitely. You do still see those types of realistic portraits and portrait commissions today, but they are nowhere near as good as in the 19th century and earlier.



I wish more celebrities would commission portraits.
---

It's also great when form is hinted at and not outlined:

I remember having to do a portrait of a classmate back in college using only lights and shadows, no outlines. It was brutal. It's not method of drawing I use. I prefer having a framework or a skeleton to work with.

pinky0926 posted...

It seems more like an exercise of technique than something that has anything to say.

Like I mentioned before, it's simply taking an already existing work of art and replicating without adding your own personal touch. To me, it's more about accuracy and trying to impress rather than producing something that actually came from the heart.

Romes187 posted...

My question to you, tc, would be why you assume creativity and originality are what art is.

Anything can be interpreted as art, really. It's a highly subjective matter. I value creativity more because you get more of a sense of where the artist comes from and how they express themselves. I'm more interested in what you can do with this picture without copying it and making an exact replica. I want to see how you stylize it, turn it into an abstract work, etc. etc.

As far as 18th and 19th Century paintings go, I enjoy those (particularly the works of Franz Winterhalter) because those were considered the master artists of their day before the existence of a camera. If you look at their works, they don't necessarily look like actual photographs, but they look realistic enough that you can actually appreciate the work that went into them.



You see, that there is a gorgeous work of art, and you can still tell it's a painting by the strokes and blobs.
---

---

What do you think of this one?


---

What do you think of this one?

Nice. I enjoy paintings depicting women. As a matter of fact, when it comes to drawing or sketching, I lean more towards women as the main subject. Their softer features translate better onto paper.

I enjoy this one.


Just by her mere eyes, you get a sense of her attitude.
---

PepperoniMaster posted...

I enjoy this one.


Just by her mere eyes, you get a sense of her attitude.

Thats amazing. Im always impressed by artists who can take a relatively ordinary subject and turn it into art that not only takes obvious technical skill but is also thought provoking.
---

Another photorealism example:



I think the problem is that with photorealism, there is too much focus on details that are not essential to communicating the aspects that (should) matter most in art. It also loses some charm when everything is perfect, the same reason why 1940s and 50s hand-drawn animations can look more appealing than perfect CGI renderings.
---

I mean I guess its probably clear why mimesis art isn't really that en vogue anymore

there are too many artists

back in the day, you had like....what 5 people drawing flowers? Now we have a billion

and maybe individual originality is the only thing that shines through currently.

we really have to remember that art has definitely not always been so focused on epistemological ideas...and that it could change in the future as well.

Vol2tex posted...

I think the problem is that with photorealism, there is too much focus on details that are not essential to communicating the aspects that (should) matter most in art.

It's more about accuracy and craftsmanship rather than conveying an original idea. I'd be more interested with what you could do when presented with a portrait. Something I value is ingenuity, so I want to see how you implement your own style instead of focusing on every little detail to try to replicate it.



To me, that particular portrait is more personalized, shows more character, is very expressive, and more impressive than if the artist was to create a photo-realistic portrait. It's about utilizing your own style to create a work of art that is awe inspiring, especially to the subject and viewers in general.

Romes187 posted...

and maybe individual originality is the only thing that shines through currently.

I agree with this. With photorealistic art, the result will always be the same (or close proximity), regardless of the artist. It becomes more about how they approached that work of art and what technique they used as opposed to creative expression.
---

Well I value the skill more so...nah. The other kind of art tends to be more pretentious IMO and much worse. Not a fan of abstract and supposed symbolism and whatnot.
---

I'm not huge on abstract, either, nor would I consider myself a fan of Cubism, Surrealism, practically any art where the composition is distorted and takes a dive into the subconscious. I don't like having to interpret the message of what the artist is trying to tell me.

In terms of what modern art I enjoy, digital art is still my favorite, particularly anime-inspired.
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Kind of, yeah. It's like the technical death metal of art.

I was thinking exactly this

No. It's the best.
---

Pretentious probably isn't the correct term, more like "show-off". To the artist, it's nothing spectacular from a creative standpoint, but the common folk will probably be extremely impressed with what they see.

Yea, painting isn't exactly a medium I exercise frequently. It's too messy, and with the advent of technology and digital art being a thing, I'm more inclined to explore that.
---

Vol2tex posted...

It would have been interesting to see the photo used as reference.

It's also great when form is hinted at and not outlined:

wow, how can you not think this is impressive?

hardly an art aficionado though
---

spudger posted...

Vol2tex posted...

It would have been interesting to see the photo used as reference.

It's also great when form is hinted at and not outlined:

wow, how can you not think this is impressive?

hardly an art aficionado though

That is what I am calling impressive in contrast to hyperrealism. This drawing shows a great deal of artistic choices rather being a line for line copy.
---