REALISM

Been looking into Realism, Photo-realism, and Hyper-realism.

Has got me wondeering if life-casting is a kind of 'photograph' of form. I talked in my essay of the attraction of 'realism' to the 'outsider' or folk artist, and by that I mean any artist not a professional artist, or working within the established art education and promotion system.

I'm learning to make these distinctions as the first text I've read covers the period of realism in the 19th century, where the move was to champion the use of themes and scenes from contemporary life, as opposed to 'history painting.

I'm fascinated, as a social phonomenon, how the engagement with the medium and the demonstration of it's mastery becomes an end in itself. Perhaps as well it is the initial stage in all artists careers? [I remember one artist of particularly minimal work, being confronted with a childhood example of 'paint by numbers!]

Eventually one either has to make a choice to look deeper into the the world around, or stay with trying to impress with fidelity to what would have once been called nature. The original movement is classed as historically preceeding Symbolism.

The realism I was thinking of is the 'Photorealism' of the 1970's [I use it as it's clear it refers to the 2D] and is perhaps a strain of Pop art reaction against Abstract Expressionism and an embracing of popular culture. Was interested in reading the entry on wikipedia about how "Textures, surfaces, lighting effects, and shadows appear clearer and more distinct than the reference photo or even the actual subject itself." [Meisel, Louis K. Photorealism. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, New York. 1980. p. 12. via 'Hyperrealism' Wikipedia]

'Hyperrealism' seems to be the term used to cover overtly realistic work of the present' though again artist are using "additional, often subtle, pictorial elements to create the illusion of a reality which in fact either does not exist or cannot be seen by the human eye." [Fleming, John and Honour, Hugh The Visual Arts: A History, 3rd Edition. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. New York, 1991. p. 680-710 via Hyperrealism Wilipedia]

Again and again the qualification to be defined as a photorealist or hyperrealist artist, after the photographic source material has been acknowledged, is the skill to recreate the image with sufficient skill.

Realism = the opportunity to display skill. If anything it lead to questioning of the existence of reality, or what constitutes reality. Of course, when placed next to abstract work, anything remotely representational will look as tending towards reality.

This is the text of a student, studying fine art, with a college that has design in it's title. I question everyday what is 'fine art' ?

One thing I am concious of is, an incredible technical achievement for the artist, can be invisible to the public. Work that is technically spectacular can be self-indulgent. It tends, I feel, to design, which stretches all the way to function. I don't want to be a designer. The one design that every artist and art student agrees to is the design of the gallery, with it's visual neutrality, white walls and grey or pale wooden floor. It provides the seriousness for the most playfully inompetent work. [I'm thinking here of the complete relocation of Paul McCarthy's grotesque studio to the forbidding gallery on Savile Row, with it's bank like security and location in the wealthiest part of London.]

But where does this leave sculpture ? There are installations but withouth the same definition of skill. [Wish I could think of the name of the artist who carefully copied everything in their studio in another material that was in the Tate recently.] What is the one thing most challenging to recreate with skill - the figurative ? Unless it is the human body, is it not design we are looking at ?

I want to look at the figurative, in and out of the gallery, and related to the mediums and processes involved.

Off the top of my head, there is