Blogs are very bizarre things. They enable an infinite number of people from various backgrounds and all over the globe to all hold a sort of discussion. The impersonal nature of blogs allows people to open up to saying things they might otherwise not express, sometimes in ways that are offensive, sometimes in ways that are profound. The tendency with blogs that I have seen (regarding Art) is that they are flooded with naivety and harshly firm opinions that are not backed by fact or any decent argument. They are instead, however, a free-for-all of adults acting like children, throwing comments out that are the Art-world equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?", or "You're dumb, la la la I'm not listening..."
The issue I have is the lack of desire to reach an understanding; to learn about the other people's views. Or at the least, to learn about whatever it is they are feverishly opinionated about.
I receive notifications about any sites or blogs with the tag "hyperrealism" via google, and I'm a bit perturbed with what I read on blogs regarding this fine genre of Art. Opinions are the blood cells that make up the world of Art, so I am in no way trying to disregard or depreciate anyone's opinion. Rather, I am merely trying to shed some light on what is quite clearly a highly misunderstood genre of Fine Art.
The most frequent comments I read are that the images are "indiscernible from a photograph, and therefore pointless", that the "compositions (and subject matter) are boring and not pleasing to look at", and the artist "slavishly copies every detail without any personal expression, therefore removing any artistic or creative voice". All these opinions adding up to the main theme, which is that Hyperrealism is pointless and/or not even Art.
I invite anyone who feels these opinions to see a hyperrealistic painting in person. The objective is NOT to simply copy-and-paste the photographic image onto canvas. Nor is it a vain exersize in self-gratification by demonstrating one's technical abilities. And have you ever stopped to ask yourself, why did the artist chose "such a boring image"? Even realists have concepts behind their work, and the lack of an ability to look deeper into an image only reveals an art-viewer's lack of intellect and open-thought in art. If you can see why a used urinal signed "R. Mutt" is high-art, then you should undoubtedly be able to see why hyperrealism is as well.
The problem with an argument regarding "indicernibility from a photograph" is that the viewer is making a bold assumption that they know what the photograph looked like in the first place. Artists add, subtract, abstract, and alter details both large and small throughout the entire painting in order to impliment values and beliefs they hold regarding realism and painting. Color theories, edge qualities, perspectives, camera distortions, proportions, light, values, contrast.... need I go on? In many cases, the image is not from a single photograph- sometimes up to 5 or more photographs are used for references in order to create an image that cannot be captured by the camera.
As for myself, my personal artistic expression is in the way I apply brush strokes, the imagery that I am creating, the purpose behind the work, the way I interpret clues from a photograph and manipulate them into a more "realistic" image, and more. Though your pop-corn-art-viewer may only see a copy, an artist with an eye for subtlety and detail will clearly see the impossibility of what I, and so many other artists like me, have created.
One final note I have to say: In a world dominated by conceptual art, where in order to understand the work you must look deeper into the purpose and meaning behind it (which most often can only be recognized through the words of the artists themselves), art-viewers/critics need to take another minute to look at themselves and the way they act when looking at a hyperrealistic work of art. Are you fairly assessing the work that sits in front of you and attempting to think outside the box, as you would with any conceptual work of art? Or are you closing your mind to presumption, and disregarding an entire genre that evolved from the "masters" themselves, catering only to what you believe is "hip" in the art world today?...
No comments:
Post a Comment