10 ms·

Are Today’s Portraitists Better Than the Old Masters?

67 points by Kaibeezy 5y ago

Kaibeezy 5y ago
The spaceman is Salvator Tuesday by Conor Walton.
- iqanq 5y ago
  It's half Elon Musk half Joey from Friends.
kubb 5y ago
Yes, people are also running faster than they used to, they play chess better than they used to, we've been pushing the limits (not me personally lol) of what is possible and it stands to reason that portraitists are also getting better. The only objection to this I can imagine is rooted in the misconception that it's somehow irreverent to see today's students as better than the old masters. The brilliance of the past heroes consisted in pushing the needle of what was possible, and today's heroes are pushing it even further.
- masklinn 5y ago
  That’s a great point, it surprises nobody to see today’s students posting better performances than yesterday’s masters when it comes to sport, or have today’s grad students know more than trailblazers of 19th century science, but that seems a lot more alien when it comes to the arts (at least in the general public). But as in sports, or sciences, or architecture, or engineering, what the old masters had to discover or invent then became part of the standard curriculum, and could be refined, built upon further, and better tooling could be designed and taught.
- yanmaani 5y ago
  Counterpoint: People write worse poetry than they used to, the books are worse now, and all the architecture is terrible. Grant that they don't have anything interesting to write about and it's too expensive to build decent buildings, but the poetry is indisputable.
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    There was no shortage of bad poems, books, and architecture in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
    - yanmaani 5y ago
      This is an intriguing proposition, but for the architecture we can trivially prove it false. Just go outside and look at the new developments going up, then go to the library and look at pictures of literal tenements from a hundred years ago. Even their industrial buildings looked good!
      - lajy 5y ago
        I'd say architecture fits in a bit differently here, due to the extremely high barriers to entry (you have to secure property AND fund the design AND fund the construction) compared to almost any other form of artistic expression. American society (and much of the rest of the world) has become more profit-focused over time, and buildings are a huge cost. Therefore, they've been increasingly designed to be purpose-built. Aesthetics cost money, and rarely serve the purpose of whoever is paying for the building. If you funded the most talented architects alive to create works of beauty, I bet you'd get it.
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        You're not wrong, but I think that's more a function of how one becomes a respected architect than the potentials of the students. I suspect it's an out growth of what Taleb called the 'expert problem' in that the best architects are anointed as such by other architects, rather than the public.
  - watwut 5y ago
    What makes you think there are less interesting things to write about then in the past?
    - 5y ago
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  For me, a large part of what makes the art of the past so captivating is its historicity. It reflects and intervenes in a context - politically, intellectually, economically, artistically - radically different to our own. Looking at great art from the past is an insight into different ways of thinking and being, and different moments in history. Reducing art to technique misses this.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  Progress in sports is fairly linear. Progress in the arts is not very linear.
- rixed 5y ago
  > they play chess better than they used to I tend to believe that, given how intensive we train players these days, but are we actually certain that it is the case? I guess we could ask a chess engine to rate all available games but that would not be terribly convincing because they were playing a different style, against the players of their time (unlike a running competition, you really need two players to play a game of chess). Also, for some past players we don't have that many games to begin with.
  - edanm 5y ago
    (Context: I'm a very bad chess player, but have been getting into it lately.) I think we're fairly certain that chess players today would beat chess players of the past, in a regular 1 on 1 game. Assuming the old chess players didn't have time to prepare. Chess programs can rate the accuracy of moves, so we can see how accurate past players were. In addition, a lot has been discovered about more correct opening theory - a grandmaster of the past would make many mistakes in the opening that a modern grandmaster would be able to take advantage of, simply because they didn't know those lines.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  We've been pushing the limits of things which we care a lot about and invest a lot of time and money into. Is portrait painting one of those things? My impression is that it took a bit of a dip when the camera was invented, and the number of people doing it seriously today is fairly low. There are plenty of digital artists making images of human beings, but how many of them are traditional portraits? Probably not too many. So, it would not surprise me if the field had not increased as much as, say, chess or semi-conductor production.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    >many of them are traditional portraits There is so much talent out there due to increased accessibility that people who don't specialize in portraits are still extremely capable, many (arguably) more so than old masters. I think even more than sports, where physiology limits how much one can train / improve. Digital tools have allowed artists to accumulate much more practice. Literally not having to wait for paint to dry is a huge advantage.
- fumblebee 5y ago
  Except, progress isn't guaranteed by the march of time. Take something more objective than fine art, like Roman Concrete [1]. To this day the Pantheon is the largest freestanding dome in the world because of the concrete's disproportionately good durability and longevity. It puts modern mass produced concrete to shame. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete
asiachick 5y ago
the old masters were certainly talented but you could argue much of their fame comes from there being so few people who'd have had the means to pursue their art hundred of years ago whereas nowadays many people can find the means one way or another.
- watwut 5y ago
  Are you sure 1922 was worst then 2022 for drawing? You could have had steady income from being a painter in the past afaik. People nowadays just don't buy originals, but they used to in the past.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    People do buy originals - where are you getting this from? There are mini art galleries all over the place. You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around...
    - watwut 5y ago
      > You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around... Yeah, that is what I meant. Amount of people buying actual drawings as gifts or to decorate office/house is smaller.
      - throwaway22032 5y ago
        The proportion is lower, but is the absolute amount lower?
        watwut 5y ago
        I would think so, yes. Living off making paintings and selling them is not a thing anymore. Some outliers exists and some artists supplement income like that. World changed, economy changed. Painting and portraits is something artists still learn, do as hobby or stunt (1 minute portrait drawings and such), but actually live off other things because market moved away from it.
deugtniet 5y ago
I tend to disagree with the assessment that the an artists technique has anything to do with how good an artist is. Case in point: in Picasso's formative years, he was a great realistic painter. He became a great artist because he pushed the boundary of abstract art that is arguably easier to paint than his earlier work. To me, Picasso was so good because he built a story (myth) around his work that resonated with so many people. The Mona Lisa is the most famous painting because of the myth around it. It's a beautiful portait, but is it really the best portrait ever? I think in the same wing of the Louvre there are better paintings of Da Vinci on show, even though there is no crowd around it. Recently, the myth builders have been (maybe they still are) Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst, I think that's what makes them great artists.
- jack_riminton 5y ago
  Totally agree. There's a raft of modern realist painters who's work is so similar to photographs that they're utterly devoid of the main criteria of good art... feeling A lot of this is compounded by the practice of working from high def photographs. Working from life is worlds apart from working from photos. As an illustration of this, try and take a photograph of a beautiful sunset and compare it to what you see
  - cntainer 5y ago
    I always found that practice weird. When using a photo as a source it feels like you're just taking someone else's vision and photocopying it on a canvas. Yes there are many photos that you can call art, but if you're not the one that took the original photo it feels like most of the creative effort was not yours and you're just showing off your brush/pen technique. As a disclaimer, I have 0 talent when it comes to drawing/painting so I'm pretty much clueless about the creative process of modern painting.
    - dagw 5y ago
      When using a photo as a source it feels like you're just taking someone else's vision and photocopying it on a canvas. There are lots of ways of using a photo as a source. A lot of the 'art' comes from choosing which techniques and paints and colors to use to capture the feeling you are after. You can also choose to make choices like adding/removing elements, changing the field of view or moving the point of view, playing with perspective etc. to make the composition more interesting. You can give the same photo to 100 different artists and you will get back 100 different paintings with 100 different artistic choices, some of which will appeal to you on an artistic level a lot more than others.
cntainer 5y ago
I really like the "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote because it brings into perspective the fact that direct comparison doesn't make a lot of sense, especially in fields that are continuously growing and evolving (like science and art) and every generation starts where the previous ones left off. Is Einstein a greater scientist than Newton? Are both of them better than Galileo? Now that would be a fun discussion at the pub, but with no real value. All of these guys benefited from previous work done by other "masters" and this helped them reach even greater heights. Even in sports like chess, where it's a lot easier to compare matches and ratings across decades and even centuries you could debate that the old masters had a fraction of the resources available to current masters so the comparison doesn't really hold.
kingkawn 5y ago
“Better”
ciroduran 5y ago
This article reminds me of this great comic from Sephko: "Will I ever be as good as the Old Masters?" - https://imgur.com/gallery/96gq9FD https://imgur.com/gallery/96gq9FD
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Interesting article that appeals to my interests (as an occasional portrait photographer with a Julia Margaret Cameron obsession). And Laura In Black really knocked me back in my chair.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  I would say that Ketsia and Sardone are the boldest examples here, but Laura is more accessible, and a beautiful work, yes.
d--b 5y ago
> A portrait of the Grand Master Sardone by Evolve Artist Founder and master portraitist Kevin Murphy Ok so this piece is content marketing for a self-proclaimed master portraitist who gives art lessons. Guess what? He thinks the current generation is taking art to a "whole new level" (I wouldn't be surprised if the quoted artists are former students). I'll take that with a pinch of salt.
- Kaibeezy 5y ago
  “content marketing” OP. Yeah, I guess I can see that now. Honestly, I did a search for Salvator Tuesday after a friend mentioned it, saw this link, thought the examples shown were interesting and the question intriguing. It’s one I’ve asked about music, literature and other topics many times. Agree, his analysis is very limited. The better not to scare off any potential customers, I suppose. If anyone knows of a more academically sound paper or exhibition on these lines, I’d click that.
Apocryphon 5y ago
This is like the third post within a month contrasting the modern form of a medium with its past glories. Are we sick of the future?
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  What future? I’m not being sarcastic; who is walking around talking about a coherent, optimistic and appealing future?
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
As an artist, I can tell you that "realism" is something that we can all agree on, but that art isn't really about portraying something (or someone) realistically. In the old days, it was the only way to preserve our likeness, but these days, a camera will do a much better job than even many of the most skilled artists, if you look for realism. There are some awesome "hyper-realist" artists out there[0], [1]. It can be argued that they are even better than cameras, as there is an element of emotional interpretation, and the artist can do things like play with the context. But there are many that would argue that this isn't necessarily "art," as art is an interpretation of an emotional experience, as opposed to simple documentation. Piacsso's Portrait of Igor Stravinsky[2] is considered one of the better portraits out there, and it's not really much to look at, if you are looking for realism, but it will sell for a heck of a lot more than some of the hyper-realistic works in the previous links. Art is a story, not just a document, and that story includes many components, including the artist's own story. I know that one of my favorite artists, is Roger Dean[3], who is not particularly realistic. I have never really been a fan of Boris Vallejo[4], who is probably a much more skilled draftsman. I'd say that the question "Is one artist better than another?" is almost meaningless. [0] https://www.boredpanda.com/hyper-realistic-art/ https://www.boredpanda.com/hyper-realistic-art/ [1] https://artincontext.org/hyperrealism-art/ https://artincontext.org/hyperrealism-art/ [2] https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-117.php https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-117.php [3] https://rogerdean.com https://rogerdean.com [4] https://www.borisjulie.com/product-category/prints/boris-prints/ https://www.borisjulie.com/product-category/prints/boris-pri...
- fao_ 5y ago
  > As an artist, I can tell you that "realism" is something that we can all agree on, but that art isn't really about portraying something (or someone) realistically. In the old days, it was the only way to preserve our likeness, but these days, a camera will do a much better job than even many of the most skilled artists, if you look for realism. As an artist, you should know that a camera does not represent reality, it flattens and distorts it in such subtle ways that often art of the thing is a better likeness than the actual thing. It's one of the most basic steps in any art class -- to draw reality, not what the camera gives you, and is the reason why Botanical Artwork is still highly favoured over images (along with other reasons, like being able to represent the most important parts of the plant accurately in a general sense as opposed to a specific specimen). Hyper-realism, in my experience, also tends to be based off of images and still has that "unreal" skewed/distorted perspective thing going on.
pvaldes 5y ago
Not. The main difference is in the pre-painting work 1) The medium. Old masters must made their own paint and then paint the portrait. And this is double of the effort that modern masters need to do. This is not necessary anymore. you just buy it exactly made, in the exact amounts and the exact color tone, all the times. This means to grind the pigments to a fine dust (and many are poisonous), filter it, discard the extra materials until you have a pure paint. Mix it with eggs, or linem oil, or water and gum. Paint it and then let it dry for many months avoiding cracks in the painting. Paint products today have stuff to dry faster and more uniform. Using those you can accelerate the dry process or made it much more long, as you need. 2) Modern masters also copy, a lot, from photographs. All is done yet in a photograph. All the points and precise measures are here at the exact distance. This is much easier than building the structure slowly in your mind and improving it by iteration. 3) The eyes. With internet your work is seen by everybody in real time. If is good is good. You can use a lot of tricks to build a myth or spread your work. It was not so easy in the old ages.
meowzero 5y ago
This article feels superficial to me. The only explanation he gives is that the paintings look more realistic? Was that it? I guess he mentions the craft, so I'm assuming he's only talking about the craft of portraiture, not the art.
- Kaibeezy 5y ago
  OP. Agree, the article was light, but I liked the many examples, which did show a range of styles and approaches. I thought the question would make for an interesting discussion. I haven’t had a chance to read all the way through the comments, but I hope people veered off into other fields — music, literature, etc.
deltaonefour 5y ago
Also keep in mind today's portraitists have photographs to copy from. They have tracing paper and other gadgets that help them produce an even more accurate portrait.
marstall 5y ago
No, because portraiture has been out of fashion for many decades, so the best artists by and large don't work in this medium.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "No, because portraiture has been out of fashion for many decades, so the best artists by and large don't work in this medium." Who are "the best artists"? According to who? And what makes you think "the best artists" have to follow fashion?
  - marstall 5y ago
    the best artists are the ones that set the fashion, which is not about figurative art now. think Ai Wei Wei

67 points by Kaibeezy 5y ago

Kaibeezy 5y ago

The spaceman is Salvator Tuesday by Conor Walton.

iqanq 5y ago
It's half Elon Musk half Joey from Friends.

kubb 5y ago

Yes, people are also running faster than they used to, they play chess better than they used to, we've been pushing the limits (not me personally lol) of what is possible and it stands to reason that portraitists are also getting better. The only objection to this I can imagine is rooted in the misconception that it's somehow irreverent to see today's students as better than the old masters. The brilliance of the past heroes consisted in pushing the needle of what was possible, and today's heroes are pushing it even further.

masklinn 5y ago
That’s a great point, it surprises nobody to see today’s students posting better performances than yesterday’s masters when it comes to sport, or have today’s grad students know more than trailblazers of 19th century science, but that seems a lot more alien when it comes to the arts (at least in the general public). But as in sports, or sciences, or architecture, or engineering, what the old masters had to discover or invent then became part of the standard curriculum, and could be refined, built upon further, and better tooling could be designed and taught.
yanmaani 5y ago
Counterpoint: People write worse poetry than they used to, the books are worse now, and all the architecture is terrible. Grant that they don't have anything interesting to write about and it's too expensive to build decent buildings, but the poetry is indisputable.
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  There was no shortage of bad poems, books, and architecture in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
  - yanmaani 5y ago
    This is an intriguing proposition, but for the architecture we can trivially prove it false. Just go outside and look at the new developments going up, then go to the library and look at pictures of literal tenements from a hundred years ago. Even their industrial buildings looked good!
    - lajy 5y ago
      I'd say architecture fits in a bit differently here, due to the extremely high barriers to entry (you have to secure property AND fund the design AND fund the construction) compared to almost any other form of artistic expression. American society (and much of the rest of the world) has become more profit-focused over time, and buildings are a huge cost. Therefore, they've been increasingly designed to be purpose-built. Aesthetics cost money, and rarely serve the purpose of whoever is paying for the building. If you funded the most talented architects alive to create works of beauty, I bet you'd get it.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      You're not wrong, but I think that's more a function of how one becomes a respected architect than the potentials of the students. I suspect it's an out growth of what Taleb called the 'expert problem' in that the best architects are anointed as such by other architects, rather than the public.
- watwut 5y ago
  What makes you think there are less interesting things to write about then in the past?
  - 5y ago
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
For me, a large part of what makes the art of the past so captivating is its historicity. It reflects and intervenes in a context - politically, intellectually, economically, artistically - radically different to our own. Looking at great art from the past is an insight into different ways of thinking and being, and different moments in history. Reducing art to technique misses this.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
Progress in sports is fairly linear. Progress in the arts is not very linear.
rixed 5y ago
> they play chess better than they used to I tend to believe that, given how intensive we train players these days, but are we actually certain that it is the case? I guess we could ask a chess engine to rate all available games but that would not be terribly convincing because they were playing a different style, against the players of their time (unlike a running competition, you really need two players to play a game of chess). Also, for some past players we don't have that many games to begin with.
- edanm 5y ago
  (Context: I'm a very bad chess player, but have been getting into it lately.) I think we're fairly certain that chess players today would beat chess players of the past, in a regular 1 on 1 game. Assuming the old chess players didn't have time to prepare. Chess programs can rate the accuracy of moves, so we can see how accurate past players were. In addition, a lot has been discovered about more correct opening theory - a grandmaster of the past would make many mistakes in the opening that a modern grandmaster would be able to take advantage of, simply because they didn't know those lines.
karaterobot 5y ago
We've been pushing the limits of things which we care a lot about and invest a lot of time and money into. Is portrait painting one of those things? My impression is that it took a bit of a dip when the camera was invented, and the number of people doing it seriously today is fairly low. There are plenty of digital artists making images of human beings, but how many of them are traditional portraits? Probably not too many. So, it would not surprise me if the field had not increased as much as, say, chess or semi-conductor production.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  >many of them are traditional portraits There is so much talent out there due to increased accessibility that people who don't specialize in portraits are still extremely capable, many (arguably) more so than old masters. I think even more than sports, where physiology limits how much one can train / improve. Digital tools have allowed artists to accumulate much more practice. Literally not having to wait for paint to dry is a huge advantage.
fumblebee 5y ago
Except, progress isn't guaranteed by the march of time. Take something more objective than fine art, like Roman Concrete [1]. To this day the Pantheon is the largest freestanding dome in the world because of the concrete's disproportionately good durability and longevity. It puts modern mass produced concrete to shame. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

asiachick 5y ago

the old masters were certainly talented but you could argue much of their fame comes from there being so few people who'd have had the means to pursue their art hundred of years ago whereas nowadays many people can find the means one way or another.

watwut 5y ago
Are you sure 1922 was worst then 2022 for drawing? You could have had steady income from being a painter in the past afaik. People nowadays just don't buy originals, but they used to in the past.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  People do buy originals - where are you getting this from? There are mini art galleries all over the place. You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around...
  - watwut 5y ago
    > You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around... Yeah, that is what I meant. Amount of people buying actual drawings as gifts or to decorate office/house is smaller.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      The proportion is lower, but is the absolute amount lower?
      - watwut 5y ago
        I would think so, yes. Living off making paintings and selling them is not a thing anymore. Some outliers exists and some artists supplement income like that. World changed, economy changed. Painting and portraits is something artists still learn, do as hobby or stunt (1 minute portrait drawings and such), but actually live off other things because market moved away from it.

deugtniet 5y ago

I tend to disagree with the assessment that the an artists technique has anything to do with how good an artist is. Case in point: in Picasso's formative years, he was a great realistic painter. He became a great artist because he pushed the boundary of abstract art that is arguably easier to paint than his earlier work. To me, Picasso was so good because he built a story (myth) around his work that resonated with so many people. The Mona Lisa is the most famous painting because of the myth around it. It's a beautiful portait, but is it really the best portrait ever? I think in the same wing of the Louvre there are better paintings of Da Vinci on show, even though there is no crowd around it. Recently, the myth builders have been (maybe they still are) Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst, I think that's what makes them great artists.

jack_riminton 5y ago
Totally agree. There's a raft of modern realist painters who's work is so similar to photographs that they're utterly devoid of the main criteria of good art... feeling A lot of this is compounded by the practice of working from high def photographs. Working from life is worlds apart from working from photos. As an illustration of this, try and take a photograph of a beautiful sunset and compare it to what you see
- cntainer 5y ago
  I always found that practice weird. When using a photo as a source it feels like you're just taking someone else's vision and photocopying it on a canvas. Yes there are many photos that you can call art, but if you're not the one that took the original photo it feels like most of the creative effort was not yours and you're just showing off your brush/pen technique. As a disclaimer, I have 0 talent when it comes to drawing/painting so I'm pretty much clueless about the creative process of modern painting.
  - dagw 5y ago
    When using a photo as a source it feels like you're just taking someone else's vision and photocopying it on a canvas. There are lots of ways of using a photo as a source. A lot of the 'art' comes from choosing which techniques and paints and colors to use to capture the feeling you are after. You can also choose to make choices like adding/removing elements, changing the field of view or moving the point of view, playing with perspective etc. to make the composition more interesting. You can give the same photo to 100 different artists and you will get back 100 different paintings with 100 different artistic choices, some of which will appeal to you on an artistic level a lot more than others.

cntainer 5y ago

I really like the "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote because it brings into perspective the fact that direct comparison doesn't make a lot of sense, especially in fields that are continuously growing and evolving (like science and art) and every generation starts where the previous ones left off. Is Einstein a greater scientist than Newton? Are both of them better than Galileo? Now that would be a fun discussion at the pub, but with no real value. All of these guys benefited from previous work done by other "masters" and this helped them reach even greater heights. Even in sports like chess, where it's a lot easier to compare matches and ratings across decades and even centuries you could debate that the old masters had a fraction of the resources available to current masters so the comparison doesn't really hold.

kingkawn 5y ago

“Better”

ciroduran 5y ago

This article reminds me of this great comic from Sephko: "Will I ever be as good as the Old Masters?" - https://imgur.com/gallery/96gq9FD https://imgur.com/gallery/96gq9FD

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

Interesting article that appeals to my interests (as an occasional portrait photographer with a Julia Margaret Cameron obsession). And Laura In Black really knocked me back in my chair.

pvaldes 5y ago
I would say that Ketsia and Sardone are the boldest examples here, but Laura is more accessible, and a beautiful work, yes.

d--b 5y ago

> A portrait of the Grand Master Sardone by Evolve Artist Founder and master portraitist Kevin Murphy Ok so this piece is content marketing for a self-proclaimed master portraitist who gives art lessons. Guess what? He thinks the current generation is taking art to a "whole new level" (I wouldn't be surprised if the quoted artists are former students). I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

Kaibeezy 5y ago
“content marketing” OP. Yeah, I guess I can see that now. Honestly, I did a search for Salvator Tuesday after a friend mentioned it, saw this link, thought the examples shown were interesting and the question intriguing. It’s one I’ve asked about music, literature and other topics many times. Agree, his analysis is very limited. The better not to scare off any potential customers, I suppose. If anyone knows of a more academically sound paper or exhibition on these lines, I’d click that.

Apocryphon 5y ago

This is like the third post within a month contrasting the modern form of a medium with its past glories. Are we sick of the future?

germinalphrase 5y ago
What future? I’m not being sarcastic; who is walking around talking about a coherent, optimistic and appealing future?

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

As an artist, I can tell you that "realism" is something that we can all agree on, but that art isn't really about portraying something (or someone) realistically. In the old days, it was the only way to preserve our likeness, but these days, a camera will do a much better job than even many of the most skilled artists, if you look for realism. There are some awesome "hyper-realist" artists out there[0], [1]. It can be argued that they are even better than cameras, as there is an element of emotional interpretation, and the artist can do things like play with the context. But there are many that would argue that this isn't necessarily "art," as art is an interpretation of an emotional experience, as opposed to simple documentation. Piacsso's Portrait of Igor Stravinsky[2] is considered one of the better portraits out there, and it's not really much to look at, if you are looking for realism, but it will sell for a heck of a lot more than some of the hyper-realistic works in the previous links. Art is a story, not just a document, and that story includes many components, including the artist's own story. I know that one of my favorite artists, is Roger Dean[3], who is not particularly realistic. I have never really been a fan of Boris Vallejo[4], who is probably a much more skilled draftsman. I'd say that the question "Is one artist better than another?" is almost meaningless. [0] https://www.boredpanda.com/hyper-realistic-art/ https://www.boredpanda.com/hyper-realistic-art/ [1] https://artincontext.org/hyperrealism-art/ https://artincontext.org/hyperrealism-art/ [2] https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-117.php https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-117.php [3] https://rogerdean.com https://rogerdean.com [4] https://www.borisjulie.com/product-category/prints/boris-prints/ https://www.borisjulie.com/product-category/prints/boris-pri...

fao_ 5y ago
> As an artist, I can tell you that "realism" is something that we can all agree on, but that art isn't really about portraying something (or someone) realistically. In the old days, it was the only way to preserve our likeness, but these days, a camera will do a much better job than even many of the most skilled artists, if you look for realism. As an artist, you should know that a camera does not represent reality, it flattens and distorts it in such subtle ways that often art of the thing is a better likeness than the actual thing. It's one of the most basic steps in any art class -- to draw reality, not what the camera gives you, and is the reason why Botanical Artwork is still highly favoured over images (along with other reasons, like being able to represent the most important parts of the plant accurately in a general sense as opposed to a specific specimen). Hyper-realism, in my experience, also tends to be based off of images and still has that "unreal" skewed/distorted perspective thing going on.

pvaldes 5y ago

Not. The main difference is in the pre-painting work 1) The medium. Old masters must made their own paint and then paint the portrait. And this is double of the effort that modern masters need to do. This is not necessary anymore. you just buy it exactly made, in the exact amounts and the exact color tone, all the times. This means to grind the pigments to a fine dust (and many are poisonous), filter it, discard the extra materials until you have a pure paint. Mix it with eggs, or linem oil, or water and gum. Paint it and then let it dry for many months avoiding cracks in the painting. Paint products today have stuff to dry faster and more uniform. Using those you can accelerate the dry process or made it much more long, as you need. 2) Modern masters also copy, a lot, from photographs. All is done yet in a photograph. All the points and precise measures are here at the exact distance. This is much easier than building the structure slowly in your mind and improving it by iteration. 3) The eyes. With internet your work is seen by everybody in real time. If is good is good. You can use a lot of tricks to build a myth or spread your work. It was not so easy in the old ages.

meowzero 5y ago

This article feels superficial to me. The only explanation he gives is that the paintings look more realistic? Was that it? I guess he mentions the craft, so I'm assuming he's only talking about the craft of portraiture, not the art.

Kaibeezy 5y ago
OP. Agree, the article was light, but I liked the many examples, which did show a range of styles and approaches. I thought the question would make for an interesting discussion. I haven’t had a chance to read all the way through the comments, but I hope people veered off into other fields — music, literature, etc.

deltaonefour 5y ago

Also keep in mind today's portraitists have photographs to copy from. They have tracing paper and other gadgets that help them produce an even more accurate portrait.

marstall 5y ago

No, because portraiture has been out of fashion for many decades, so the best artists by and large don't work in this medium.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"No, because portraiture has been out of fashion for many decades, so the best artists by and large don't work in this medium." Who are "the best artists"? According to who? And what makes you think "the best artists" have to follow fashion?
- marstall 5y ago
  the best artists are the ones that set the fashion, which is not about figurative art now. think Ai Wei Wei