Learning the fundamentals is essential but that doesn't mean a more realistic painting is "better" than a less realistic one. It also doesn't mean that something rendered with hyper-realism is even good.
hyperrealism or stylization? Why not both?
Art is a versatile medium with no standard for what makes it good.
Except fuck duchamp. No one likes duchamp.
No. This is master art:
"photorealistic" art still pales in comparison to a cute jumble of lines.
Besides, realistic spongebob is nightmare fuel.
1
Holy cheese! I can never look spongebob the same way again...
In all seriousness, the answer is NO. This is just my own preference but I am not a fan of artists who does realistic art and yes it's awesome aesthetically and I totally salute their techniques but most realistic art I see doesn't have much expression so I'll never be a fan of them no matter how good they are.
IMO there's no set standard or rule to qualify as a great art. Regardless of style every art is great art. It's just that all of have has a set of preferences that we look for so we think one style is better than the other but really:
2
Keep doing the art you love! :3
Absolutely not. Like the person before me (and Rick Warren, apparently) pointed out, the standard of art is entirely subjective. But I don't think the goal of art should be to make it look like a photo. Drawing isn't an inferior form of photography. Just check out @Haleymewsome's work. It's not realistic at all but it's super cute and fun to read. Realistic art can be great, too, but the goal of art is not to imitate a photo or real life.
HELL to the no.
Photorealism is not an indicator of quality. Even "realism" in and of itself has nothing necessarily to do with how good art is; quality in creative expression is, as has been mentioned, largely subjective. With art, we convey our personal perspectives that no one else in existence can have exactly the same. To that purpose, we cultivate our own styles so as to convey to someone else what we perceive and how we perceive it. A part of us should be in everything we do, in art.
But I could discuss and debate purposes behind art and meaning behind art endlessly. I just want to say that no, absolutely not, photorealism in art is not an indicator of quality or greatness at all. This is too often pushed by people -- sometimes even people who should know better, like instructors, legitimate critics, and the like -- as a reality. It is not.
A lot of people never think about why so many of the "great masters" of art painted in this way or that, but there are social and cultural reasons and influences, as well as the fact that most artists throughout history (and even now) depended on patronage, on people actually paying them to continue working in art. Before photography existed, we had painting. If you had money, you'd likely want yourself to be immortalized, after a fashion, on canvas. These were not super-accurate portrayals either! They were stylized and, in most cases, what we would now say "photoshopped" or "airbrushed" -- you didn't want features you didn't like being immortalized, after all, and you were paying money for this!
People have looked back to imitate craftspeople and creators they regard highly. But really no movement is that different than any other in terms of function; we are all trying to express ourselves and, naturally, we look to those who have done that in their lives to take what we can, learn what we can, and try to make our own distinctive voices heard in that way ourselves.
I wouldn't say a standard but I personally find art that is closer to reality to be more appealing, but again art is all subjective. I think if at the end of the day you can make money doing whatever art it is that you, do then it's successful art, but if your art isn't making a living for you as a full time artist, then it's not very successful.
2
This can be considered just as good as this:
11
As long as your art achieves what you're aiming for, you should be good.
Vagabond (first image) aims to portray its story as realistic as possible, considering it is based off of a historical figure. It aims to make everything feel grounded and gritty, in turn making the battles feel more tense.
One piece (second image) aims to be cartoonish and grandiose. Its world is large and wacky, and the art portrays that well.
Your art should achieve a certain effect you are aiming for.
I don't think the standard for good art is how realistically rendered one can make it. It's been pretty well established on this thread that "good" art is subjective and I agree. While it can be argued that realistic rendering is a plausible criteria for a skillful artwork, I think the communicative aspect of art is a better standard to judge.
What is the artist trying to express in their work? I believe that if an artist can express something through their work and it kindles a sense of understanding in the viewer or compels a reaction that the artist wants, then there stands a successful piece of art. Drawing, painting, poem or comic, whatever form of art it is, I feel it is successful when whatever it is the creator set out to communicate is understood by the audience or a desired response was elicited.
Whether it's "good" (ie: meets one's personal visual tastes) is another story.
Well, the goal of art isn't necessarily to be pretty. The goal of art is to communicate, and to make the person looking at it feel something. Art is expression - the greatness of an individual artist has less to do with whether they can paint individual strands of hair with photorealistic accuracy, and more about how clearly they can express what they feel.
And if some people think the piece is ugly, well, that doesn't change the fact that some people think it's beautiful. And thinking something is ugly doesn't mean the artwork in question didn't work. Maybe the artist WANTED you to think it's ugly?
Personally, I'm not overly fond of photorealistic art. I appreciate the skill involved and am deeply impressed with it - but I wouldn't want it on my wall, and I don't think I'd like it in my comics, either. Even the great Renaissance artists like Rembrandt didn't actually paint with photorealism-style: they added and subtracted light-sources and detail, they polished up the details in one part of the paintining and left the rest in shadow, they played with composition, they exaggerated body-language, etc.
Knowing the basics of what things look like in reality is a good thing for any artist - but you don't need to stick to it. Think of your favourite cartoon! I bet it hardly ever has things drawn in the exact, realistic proportions. I bet it's exaggerated, with simplified shapes and strange colours.
It's still good art.
TL; DR: No, the goal is not always photorealism. Art is complicated.
The standard for good/great art is just to have knowledge of what you need to do to achieve the effect that you want- and do it consistently until you find a comfort level with it.. I read/look at stuff that isnt as realistic, but has solid line/structure and fantastic colors; the creator/artist knows what they want to do and does it confidently.
This is they key question here. Consider looking beyond the present, and especially beyond Europe/USA. Different cultures have had different definitions of what's desirable. As others have mentioned, there definitely are certain rules for what is pleasing to the eye. And yet there are so many different ways of applying these!
Also, there has always been a divide between "high" and "vulgar" art. What the elite enjoys has always been different from the taste and needs of the masses. Like Noh and Kabuki for instance - the former was the "high" art, the latter "vulgar"!
So, looking beyond our Eurocentric present at paintings of different times and places:
The Pharaohs received the greatest their culture had to offer (who was going to deny them?) - and those murals looked essentially the same over centuries! So this clearly was the preferred aesthetics of the Egyptian elite (because they paid for it). (more here3)
1
Is it hyperrealism? Of course not! There's not a shred of 3D space in it! Is it fantastic? You bet it is.
Next, pre-columbian, a mural of a goddess in the Valley of Mexico3:
This is sheer excellence. And still, it's nowhere near a photograph - that's precisely what makes it great! (Let's just ignore that this specific religion demanded human sacrifice.)
And for good measure I'm throwing in this 16th century monochrome sliding door painting by Kanou Eitoku:
I think it speaks for itself (and you know what point I'm trying to make by now).
A culture's aesthetic is influenced by so many different factors, such as materials available, what's necessary for survival, climate, social structures, what the rich people want to express or achieve, social and political circumstances, religion... So in fifty years hyperrealism might very well be sneered at as a symbol of the loss of creativity and the takeover of technology. Or it's hailed as the next level of art which was only achievable through mankind's technological evolution or whatever. Who knows.
So, TLDR: NO.
To be honest I wanted to write more, but I am always anxioust hat someone will start picking on what I say, so I decided to throw that one line for now. I think I'm ready to add to it now that others voiced their opinions.
Since art is always subjective, I don't know about others, but personally I am not a fan of realistic art. Especially the one that is photorealistic. It's kind of boring to me. I see real people/landscapes every day, so I'd like to look at something more cartoony from time to time. I do think it is amazing that someone can pull it off, but on the other hand, it's a lot of work that takes hours, and you could have the same result with one single click of a camera button and a filter. But as long as someone feels happy doing it, and feels acomplished after finishing a piece, I won't stop them from doing what they like to draw.
In my journey with art and making comics, I understood that I don't have to give it my best. I can work at 70 - 80 percent of my ability and still entertain people and enjoy drawing myself. Of course there's times that I put some pressure on myself or I try to challenge myself, in which I want to give it my best. And then I go back to my "relax mode" and just draw however I like until I feel like doing another challenge.
Also, you asked about master artist. Have you heard of this?
"Jack of all trades, master of none is oftentimes better than master of one."
In this situation, I think a master artist is someone who can switch between styles freely, without any trouble, than being able to work with only one style that people may get bored of quickly. My friend has an unique style, in which he draws characters in a certain "shadowy" way, and at first I was amazed, but after a while it became very repetitive. He mastered it, no doubt but you probably know that feeling when you eat something that you enjoy, but after a month you get feed up with it.
Variety is the key.
I'll bite, although the answer is no.
There's many different schools of thinking when it comes to art. Most modern observers say that the technical skill of the artist is second to what the artist is able to make the viewer feel. In comic terms, a rough, scribbly stick figure can convey more emotion in pose and visual language than a uncannily rendered, Alex Ross level painting that just shows the same thing. As photographic advancement became common, and romantic movements flourished (around the 1800's), realistic art became less interesting to artists. The masters had already explored what could be done with representations of reality.
HAVING SAID THAT, a good technical artist (the kind needed for visual communication such as comic work or animation) would need to have a very good grasp of these realistic fundamentals. The general rule is that you can't start by subverting and experimenting unless you have a good idea what you're subverting and what you're experimenting on. Even many modern or abstract painters will be very talented at realism because it is the building blocks they must identify in order to deconstruct or abstract from.
I always believed that art is about capturing an idea and turning it into a sharable experience. I can create an idea in my mind that's beautiful, clever, or groundbreaking. However, in this world, if I can't share it has no value, and will only ever be an idea. To me that is the true value of art. How to you share an experience with anyone and everyone?
There are objective standards in art but people choose to ignore them which is why a urinal can exist as "art" in a gallery. There are objective standards of quality in virtually every form of expression. Music, Film, Video Games, Comics the same goes for fine-art but, as I said, people choose to ignore these standards.
I'm an university student who majors in 3D art & visualization (game / media graphic shit in laymans terms) and one of my classmates actually offered a great quote when one of our loaned programmers from the technical engineer program asked why we wanted the artstyle of our game project to be so unrealistic - "If you were to make the 3D- models as close to real as possible, why bother doing it in 3D at all?". You can apply this to traditional art as well.
