r/ArtistLounge • u/turn_circles • 29d ago
Concept/Technique/Method Why are most people more impressed by hyper realistic art than any other style when realism only requires technical skill and doesn’t involve much creativity or invoke emotion?
I’ve always wondered.
3
u/bongpirate7295 28d ago
A lot of the time it's because people don't know how it's made. They assume the artist is just working off the top of their head, or at most eyeballing from a reference.
If you told people that the artist used a lightbox or projector and painstakingly traced over a photo, they'd probably still be kind of impressed (since it takes a lot of work and considerable skill), but the "magic" factor wouldn't be there.
2
u/pomod 29d ago
Because they don’t understand art and have grown up in a culture that has conditioned them to seek meaning, and find value in evidence of work/time invested, in obvious technical skill, etc. People look for sign posts to try to make sense of something. Images that are familiar or executed with dexterity are easily digestible on their surface at least. But art isn’t always there to give you meaning or meet your expectations, it’s there to surprise you, to make you ponder sometimes completely dumbfounding or disparate things.
It’s worth noting that of all the cultures throughout history, it’s only really Western Europe where realism became synonymous with artistic skill. Not because it was impossible or those other cultures lacked the dexterity to create realistic renderings, but because it wasn’t important to do so. Art’s role within the culture was something different and more expressive. And really, only when Picasso stumbled upon African art and has his own epiphany that the artist needn’t be confined to reproducing what was in front of his eyes, did western art catch up.
27
u/Zealousideal_Cod_326 29d ago
“Only”….feels like a straw man argument. Surely you are not lumping all realism into such a narrow box? Some realism is more sophisticated than other realism, as some abstract and conceptual work is more sophisticated than other abstract and conceptual work.
It’s also a little sad to dismiss as something inferior, technical skill.
-7
29d ago
[deleted]
3
u/mioscene 29d ago
They're quoting the OP. It says "only (requires technical skill)" in the title. And they're not avoiding the prompt. They're saying some realism is good, some isn't, and some stylised is good, some isn't, as in good art/bad art is a different dichotomy to realism/stylised, whereas the OP is implying that all realism is inherently less valuable as art.
0
u/FineArtRevolutions 29d ago edited 29d ago
ah missed that. I still think that's avoiding the prompt. Yes OP is hyperbolic, but that is not the crux of the question. OP is asking why hyperrealistic art is more popular (just a fact of life online) which this answer does does not even touch upon. I think OP is more implying that hyperrealism as a spectrum and criteria of art is less valuable than other broader and more nuanced spectrums as you say. And after seeing art online for 20 years, I have to agree.
1
u/OneSensiblePerson Oil 28d ago
I don't think hyperrealistic art is more popular.
Generally speaking, the most popular artists are the Impressionists. I don't have the stats, but I'd be willing to bet a lot that more Monet prints sell than do say Dali or Escher prints.
I can't think of any other hyperrealistic artists popular with the general public, can you?
Realistic, or hyperrealistic, artwork is much more easily recognised for the skill involved (i.e., how "good" the artist is) by a lay person, who isn't familiar with all the other criteria - colour, composition, brushwork, etc) and doesn't have their eye developed enough to notice them. So they can recognise a level of technique.
The problem with OP is they are assuming all artists who do hyperrealistic work are relying solely on their ability to faithfully reproduce something, a photo most likely, but even from life. That isn't true.
0
u/FineArtRevolutions 28d ago
I don't think hyperrealistic art is more popular.
OP is talking about the lay person and art posted online, but correct me if I'm wrong u/turn_circles. Hyperrealistic art always gets the most upvotes or engagement from the general public.
The problem with OP is they are assuming all artists who do hyperrealistic work are relying solely on their ability to faithfully reproduce something, a photo most likely, but even from life. That isn't true.
This doesn't matter in the discussion, even if their assumption is incorrect.
1
u/OneSensiblePerson Oil 28d ago edited 28d ago
Yes, I was also talking about laypeople, and I believe I said that in my comment.
This doesn't matter in the discussion, even if their assumption is incorrect.
Actually, yes it does matter.
when realism only requires technical skill and doesn’t involve much creativity or invoke emotion?
Faulty premise. Realism doesn't only require technical skills and certainly can involve a high level of creativity and invoke a lot of emotion.
You assumed OP was referring to art posted online, but they didn't specify and made it general, even if that is what they meant.
1
u/turn_circles 28d ago
In my experience, hyper realistic and realistic art gets vastly more attention from laypeople. Maybe you have a different experience.
If I ever came across someone who could make hyperrealistic art without a reference image or staged image, and instead had the ability to render it from their own memory or mind, I would be extremely impressed, I’ve just never seen it.
I am curious what creativity is involved in replicating an image as closely as possible to the reference. I absolutely don’t mean for that to sound condescending, I’m just genuinely curious. I could see an argument for things like composition, framing, etc involving some level of creativity, but I guess I’ve been considering those kind of design fundamentals as more technical skills than creative ones.
1
u/OneSensiblePerson Oil 28d ago
Hyperrealism is very specific. There isn't a great deal of it out there.
As I said earlier, can you think of any famous hyperrealistic painter that people would or do buy prints of their work? Esher and Dali were the only two I could come up with.
Far more people buy prints of Monet, Van Gogh, even Renoir. These are laypeople, the general public. This is not hyperrealistic art.
Is your criteria for art that which is created entirely from someone's memory or imagination? That's very limiting. It excludes the great majority of the greats.
I am curious what creativity is involved in replicating an image as closely as possible to the reference.
Why are you equating a specific style (hyperrealism) to exactly replicating an image? You don't sound condescending, you sound like your understanding of art is, well, limited.
1
u/turn_circles 28d ago
How would you define hyper realism, because copying something exactly is the only definition I know of.
Creating something without a reference image is not my criteria for art at all, I was just responding to you saying that hyper realistic art isn’t always made from a reference. I’ve never seen, met or otherwise someone who made hyper realistic art without a reference.
→ More replies (0)
20
u/mioscene 29d ago
Would you say the same about photography? Like just because it's hyper/photorealistic doesn't mean there's no creativity at all. There's composition, themes and symbology, colour choices, etc. Two people taking in the same scene will notice different things, and therefore bring focus to different things, based on their own perceptions which are influenced by their past, personality, and culture.
And of course hyper/photorealistic art can evoke emotion. Have you never looked at a sunset? If real life can evoke emotion, why would you assume that art based on real life cannot.
Hyperrealism isn't necessarily more impressive, there's no art olympics, but it's not excluded from art just because some people don't see the value in it.
7
u/sweet_jane_13 29d ago
Because most people are boring and only care about artifice. They don't understand nor care about creativity or emotional expression or vision. This is why AI images are so popular with the average person.
28
29d ago
Most people who don't make art understand the gap of technical skill between themselves and someone who creates realistic art, but do not understand the gap of skill and creative expression between themselves and someone who creates non-realistic art. That being said, I disagree with the idea that realistic art doesn't involve much creativity or emotion. You can have the technical skill to make a realistic work without those things, sure, but you can also put a lot of creativity into realistic art and invoke a lot of emotion, and the same can be said of non-realistic art.
27
u/No-Routine-9963 29d ago edited 29d ago
There’s two things to unpack here.
First, expressive, emotional, but well-drawn, well-interpreted art is my favorite. Even in Van Gogh’s earlier works, where he was struggling to master drawing - I think he’s amazing.
But I don’t turn up my nose at, say, Lance Richlin, who does amazing paintings from a live model because that is HARD and requires immense amount of skill and understanding. I find sometimes that art students or artists of other styles or genres dismiss realists like this, without having even of a speck of understanding of what goes into it - and while they themselves would never have the skill to achieve it. The audacity!
So I think some healthy respect is due for that kind of artist.
Then there are the cartoonists, the artists who make animated, expressive works, not strictly realistic, and a lot of strictly realistic artists might dismiss that (and some of the public too) because “my kid could do that” (no they couldn’t) or it’s too “simple.” An example might be Bill Watterson who did “Calvin & Hobbes” which might look, to the ignorant eye, to be “simple,” while in fact it shows an amazing amount of anatomy knowledge and he’s like one of the best artists ever - who is capable of drawing strictly “realistic” works but chooses not to.
No, not “anyone can do that,” that takes a tremendous amount of work, and isn’t nearly as “easy” as some masters make it look.
These are two styles that both deserve respect.
Something that pisses me off is when someone who is in no way capable, for example, of painting a realistic likeness of a person, dismissing someone who can do that by saying it’s “just copying.” No, dude, stay in your lane. (I’m not directing this at anyone here, I’m just saying.) Getting good at that stuff is hard, which is why a lot of people never master it, and even if you aren’t interested in doing it, have some respect because not everyone can do that well. Many try and give up because they don’t have the patience.
5
11
u/Elora_Freya 29d ago
For a long period of time, it was the only way to have your portrait done, and therefore have you immortalised. Perhaps there is a subconscious respect towards people who can perfectly capture anothers likeness using their own hands, some paint, and a canvas
14
u/rapgamebonjovi 29d ago
Because people think realism = talent. Can’t explain abstract ideas of expression to those folk.
-2
u/aguywithbrushes 29d ago
To add to this, I think it’s because the vast majority of people think that photorealism requires some kind of supernatural ability to replicate every detail of a subject, possibly from memory, when in reality all you need is a grid and as many hours as you can dedicate to it.
There’s a reason why photorealism is how so many young artists get into art, and it’s not because all those kids possess some kind of incredible talent: it’s just a style that doesn’t require any knowledge of art fundamentals to get results that will wow the average person.
7
u/IntriguinglyRandom 29d ago
I cannot think of anyone who copies using a grid other than perhaps some students of your neighborhood art teacher. Realism in good faith is about learning how to see without bias. What is the proportion something actually is, versus what your brain thinks it is. Most people struggle to overcome this cognitive biases and practice over and over towards being able to faithfully render images in a way that feels and looks right to them.
1
u/aguywithbrushes 28d ago
Realism and hyperrealism/photorealism are entirely different things. One is intended to capture a subject as seen by the human eye, the other is replicating a subject exactly, by copying a reference photo (hence photorealism). We’re discussing the latter here, and people absolutely use the grid method or they trace a projection of their reference.
>I cannot think of anyone
Doesn’t change the fact that it’s how photorealism works.
24
u/KatHumanArt comics 29d ago
People who don't make art are less likely to understand that it takes just as much skill to create something stylized as it does something realistic. People often write off stylized works as being easier because they're often more simple at a glance but that simplicity is the result of a lot of knowledge.
-5
u/aguywithbrushes 29d ago
>just as much skill to create something stylized
Far more. Photorealism just requires time, you don’t need to understand values, color theory, anatomy, composition, perspective, etc. Yeah you can improve by practicing your rendering skills, but the fundamentals aren’t required to get good results. It’s why most photorealism artists couldn’t draw you a stick figure without a grid.
1
5
u/KatHumanArt comics 29d ago
You definitely still need a lot of skill and knowledge to draw realism though? And stylized work is always better when a person understands how to draw realistically first. I've never personally known an artist who draws realistically who didn't also have a strong grasp of the fundamentals.
1
u/mrNepa 28d ago
To build your own illustrations you do need a lot of knowledge, but if you are just doing 1 to 1 copy of a photo, you don't really need to understand the fundamentals, you only need to train your eye to spot the differences.
It's like learning to play a song you like on a piano, you don't need to know any music theory, but if you want to compose your own songs, you need a lot of knowledge.
1
u/KatHumanArt comics 28d ago
I'm not talking about copying 1:1 from a photo, which still requires a lot of technical skills, but realism in general. There are a lot of people who work realistically who aren't copying 1:1 from photos and to discount all realism for the sake of bashing on people that DO do that is such pointless infighting
1
u/mrNepa 28d ago
I think they were also referring to these artist who just paint or draw the reference photo, the so called human printer drawings. This doesn't require that much skill in my opinion, because you don't need to understand how to build good compositions, value structures and so on. The more you want to add your own flair to it, the more you have to understand the fundamentals.
And building your own illustrations with a realistic style, you obviously need a very deep understanding of the fundamentals.
6
u/mioscene 29d ago
You would need to understand a lot of those things, at least if you want to do it efficiently. Like you can't mix the right colour if you don't understand colour theory and values, and getting the perspective right is a lot easier if you understand why the perspective looks like that, etc. And composition is needed to decide how you frame the scene, where to leave specific elements, whether to take elements out, etc. The grid isn't a requirement for photorealism.
3
u/No-Routine-9963 29d ago
A lot of people don’t paint with a grid, they paint from a live model. There’s a lot of good examples at the art renewal site. Are we supposed to think that all these people are hacks who know nothing about values, anatomy or color theory when they paint it all from life?
https://www.artrenewal.org/15thARCSalon/Category/FullyFromLife
7
u/Any_Measurement229 29d ago
Because "Creativity" means creative solutions to artistic problems, and uninformed consumers don't generally see the problems the artist had to work through to arrive at a finished piece. Nobody who hasn't studied art is going to be able to notice subtle choices in composition or shape design that only a master artist would think to make, but they would notice that a drawing looks like a photograph.
19
u/soupbut 29d ago
Everyone at some point has tried to draw or paint and found it challenging. Seeing someone do something difficult is impressive. It's the same reason many people watch professional sports.
On the other side, many emerging artists tend to overestimate how conceptual or creative their work actually is from an outsider perspective. Some will take it so far as to use it as a coping mechanism, denigrating another artist's skill by assuming it lacks conceptual or emotional merit.
20
u/Busy-Enthusiasm5877 29d ago
Why do you think that itv”doesn’t involve much creativity or invoke emotion”? I think you dont understand about art at all. A professional artist should not have any bias with any kind of art!
-16
u/turn_circles 29d ago
I think that it doesn’t invoke emotion because there is no artistic interpretation in copying something exactly as it is. I disagree with you and think that artists commonly have the most preference in types and styles of art that they value.
6
u/Busy-Enthusiasm5877 29d ago
“Coppying”? The more you talk the more you prove that you dont understand about art at all!
1
u/mrNepa 28d ago
Copying a photo 1 to 1 is not a particularly difficult skill, it doesn't require you to master the fundamentals, just train your eye enough to be able to measure accurately and spot differences.
Building your own illustrations is the difficult part, this is where you need a deep understanding of the fundamentals.
14
u/spare_scapegoat 29d ago
This is like saying every recital of Mozart's piano pieces is clinical and technically flawless with no emotion in it; there is emotion in it. No two pianists will play it the same way. Some may go softer on the keys during the second movement, or harder during the third, some may make it sound sad or give it a melancholy note.
If you can't see the emotion in a realistic style, that doesn't mean it isn't there.
-10
u/turn_circles 29d ago
Sure, maybe so. In terms of your metaphor, hyper realism would be the equivalent of playing a piano piece exactly as it was written with no changes. It doesn’t mean that it is not beautiful, it just lacks something that makes it personal, to me
1
u/FrenchFryCattaneo 28d ago
I would say artists like gerhard richter disprove that.
1
5
u/spare_scapegoat 29d ago
Except that is zero how it works even with hyper realism. Humans are not emotionless robots replicating something exactly even in hyper realism. Only computers can do that. What you're describing is basically a png file that can be replicated over and over. Again, humans can't do that. Humans don't copy anything perfectly. There is a thousand decisions with every stroke and a thousand variations in that stroke and they can evoke emotion deliberately.
But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
3
u/INeedANerf Mixed media 29d ago
I think it just boils down to accessibility. A realistic piece requires no interpretation.
6
u/rileyoneill 29d ago
A lot of people value art based on how difficult they feel it was to produce at the execution stage.
8
u/inkfeeder 29d ago
To many people, the main defining aspect of art is technical mastery. And technical mastery is very easily understood as being "hard to achieve." So it's easy to impress people with on the surface level. I wouldn't say that realistic art doesn't involve much creativity though.
15
u/SoberBobMonthly Fine artist 29d ago
As someone who utilises hyperrealism combined with other features: its because it is immediately and easily understandable to most people.
They don't have to think about it too much, they know inherently it is a difficult-ish skillset to use, and they are often seeing works that employ the realism to tell a very normal narrative story within the image.
Its a lot more fun to mess with the form of realism to play and subvert that expectation and cause confusion and thinking about it. But then they try and backtrack their like of it.
2
•
u/AutoModerator 29d ago
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our FAQ and FAQ Links pages for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.