Why Realism in Art Stands Above the Crowd

When it comes to evaluating and appreciating art, it is often challenging to establish universal criteria. What one person finds impressive or captivating can be completely disappointing to another. A debate on the superiority of one artwork over another has persisted for centuries, making the quality of art highly subjective.

Realism: The Immediate Appeal

Realism in art, however, is a genre that is relatively easier to appreciate and critique. It is undeniably impressive to witness the skill and effort that goes into creating a lifelike piece. Complimenting a realistic artwork requires minimal thought and is a straightforward task. The immediacy and truthfulness of realism make it a lesser challenge to declare it as 'good.'

While it might be more precise to state that realism is easier to compliment rather than being the best type of art, many people find it a more accessible avenue for appreciation. However, it is important to recognize that creating realistic art demands a special skill, an acute sensitivity to the world around us, and a deep understanding of the human form and environment.

Realism and Emotional Depth

Despite its clear appeal, realism in art often hits a ceiling in terms of evoking profound emotions. While it strives to capture the recognizable, it can sometimes become mundane or even shallow.

Realism in art aims to depict the familiar, but to truly captivate an audience, art must reach beyond the mundane to evoke deep emotions. This is a crucial point of consideration. Even the most skilled realist might produce work that, while technically proficient, lacks the emotional resonance that elevates art to a higher realm.

The Evolution of My Perspective

As I have grown older, my perspectives on what constitutes the best art have evolved. Initially, I held realism in high regard, valuing its technical prowess and the accuracy it brings to representation. However, over time, I’ve let go of the notion that realism is the ultimate form of art and have come to embrace the idea that any art form that truly connects with people is at its core the best.

The reality is that there is often more bad realism than good. A painter striving for realist accuracy might depict a bowl of roses, but if executed poorly, the viewer will quickly recognize the flaw. The ideal of realism should be to depict beauty so reverently that it transcends the mere recognition of the object being portrayed. True realism is not merely about technical proficiency, but about evoking a sense of wonder and admiration.

Furthermore, the ease of producing realistic art can sometimes lead to a compromise in quality and depth. Creating a photo-realistic piece can be a feat of technical ability, but is it worth the effort when a high-quality photograph can replicate the same level of detail? The challenge lies not in replicating something you can see with your eyes, but in conveying a deeper meaning or emotion.

Looking at the works of renowned realist artists such as Edward Hopper, Gustave Zorn, Joaquín Sorolla, and Andrew Wyeth, one can see that the best realists go beyond simple representation to capture the essence of the subject. Take, for example, a painting of roses; a truly great realist artist should make the viewer appreciate the beauty of a rose as if they had never seen one before. This is the mark of a great artist, not just a replicator of reality.

While decorative sensibilities are a valid consideration, the true essence of art lies in its ability to touch and inspire. When artists aim for realism, they should do so with the intent of evoking a deeper response in the viewer, not just fulfilling a technical challenge.