3 ms·

There was a large Rothko mural at the school I went to for undergrad, and I dated an artist who loved his work for several years. I remain unmoved. On the oth

by douche 12y ago

There was a large Rothko mural at the school I went to for undergrad, and I dated an artist who loved his work for several years. I remain unmoved. On the other hand, in one visit to the Berlin Alte Nationaegallerie, I saw paintings that I will never forget. "The Iron Rolling Mill", by Adolph Menzel, "In the Troops Quarters outside Paris," by Anton von Werner. The Blinded Samson. These are truly masterpieces, to my mind.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
The irony is they're not really photorealistic. If you took a photo of those exact scenes you wouldn't get that look, because the light has been deliberately abstracted and exaggerated. They're actually more like vintage painted Instagrams, enhanced in an unnatural way for effect. E.g. The Menzel has obvious impressionist features, especially in the background and the smoke around the ceiling. The von Werner has very weird lighting, with a source behind the viewer, or possibly off to the left, or the right, and another equally bright daylight source from the room behind. This is not to be critical - they're both very good. But they both have abstracted light and form, and neither is a pure representation of physical realism. If you want photorealism, Van Eyck pretty much nailed it in the 15th century. Which is kind of the point with art - you get more points for inventing a new visual language, not for copying an existing one. That's why Picasso is so famous - he totally killed traditional representation when he was starting out. But it was too easy and boring for him, so he moved on to other kinds of painting and drawing. Modernism is partly about violently stripping away non-essentials, so first we had Guernica, then Rothko - and now we have Jony Ive and Material trailing along at the end of the trend, before everyone rediscovers 3D about five years from now.
- smikhanov 12y ago
  You are right about most things here, but I'll add a minor remark: "photorealism" is an established term for describing paintings that have certain characteristics of a photograph, for example, depth of focus. It's a 20th century movement and in strict cultural sense, Van Eyck is not photorealistic (he sometimes was deliberately skewing perspective or objects proportions). Instead, Gerhard Richter's "photo art" is an earlier example of photorealism, Chuck Close is a later one. The most interesting thing about photorealism is that it actually opened new ways for painting, i.e. photography was used as a tool to better understand visual perception.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    There's a difference between (photo)realism as a goal and Photorealism as a modern school. In art history, you won't often you find someone explaining what Estes, Close and those guys from the 60s and 70s were trying to do without also seeing a nod to Van Eyck and Vermeer.

by douche 12y ago

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

The irony is they're not really photorealistic. If you took a photo of those exact scenes you wouldn't get that look, because the light has been deliberately abstracted and exaggerated. They're actually more like vintage painted Instagrams, enhanced in an unnatural way for effect. E.g. The Menzel has obvious impressionist features, especially in the background and the smoke around the ceiling. The von Werner has very weird lighting, with a source behind the viewer, or possibly off to the left, or the right, and another equally bright daylight source from the room behind. This is not to be critical - they're both very good. But they both have abstracted light and form, and neither is a pure representation of physical realism. If you want photorealism, Van Eyck pretty much nailed it in the 15th century. Which is kind of the point with art - you get more points for inventing a new visual language, not for copying an existing one. That's why Picasso is so famous - he totally killed traditional representation when he was starting out. But it was too easy and boring for him, so he moved on to other kinds of painting and drawing. Modernism is partly about violently stripping away non-essentials, so first we had Guernica, then Rothko - and now we have Jony Ive and Material trailing along at the end of the trend, before everyone rediscovers 3D about five years from now.

smikhanov 12y ago
You are right about most things here, but I'll add a minor remark: "photorealism" is an established term for describing paintings that have certain characteristics of a photograph, for example, depth of focus. It's a 20th century movement and in strict cultural sense, Van Eyck is not photorealistic (he sometimes was deliberately skewing perspective or objects proportions). Instead, Gerhard Richter's "photo art" is an earlier example of photorealism, Chuck Close is a later one. The most interesting thing about photorealism is that it actually opened new ways for painting, i.e. photography was used as a tool to better understand visual perception.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  There's a difference between (photo)realism as a goal and Photorealism as a modern school. In art history, you won't often you find someone explaining what Estes, Close and those guys from the 60s and 70s were trying to do without also seeing a nod to Van Eyck and Vermeer.