Photorealism
Photorealism is the term predominantly applied to paintings that are extremely life-like in visual appearance, thus resembling photographs. There are other mediums, which I will discuss in another post that also fall under this movement.
I was first introduced to this term and artistic movement whilst studying at university in an embarrassing and unforgettable way. Whilst in a group critique I was trying to describe a ‘photograph’ I saw in a periodical in the library; take into consideration this was before smartphones and practically priced/available laptops where I could have easily summoned up the image from the web, (now I feel old). Anyhow, I finally recalled the title of the ‘photograph’, which was ‘Betty’, to which my tutor humorously laughed; not at me I might add, but at my mistake. I was dutifully informed that the image in question was a painting called ‘Betty, 1988’ by Gerhard Richter. Well my faced turned as red as Betty’s top.
I have since then come to love and marvel at the sheer technical quality and such realism these paintings portray. Coupled with the rediscovery of artists’ work I had previously and shamefully admired as photographs. Some of these were from Chuck Close, in particular his image ‘Big Self-Portrait, 1968’. The moment I realised that this was an acrylic painting, I was flabbergasted, the shading, the catch light in the glasses and the overall tonal quality, it had to be a photograph, but no, just an amazing painting.
In recent years though I have come to appreciate this style not so much for its technical quality but in its support and recognition towards photography as a serious artistic medium.
‘Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…’
As photography was born from science, I have always had a feeling that it has never been taken seriously by the mainstream art world and that it has always laid on the periphery. Yes, although photography has its own established world, to look at it on par with traditional art is not typically the norm. There was though an interesting exhibition at the National Gallery last year, called ‘Seduced By Art’ which had photography and old masters paintings hung side by side. Did this help bring the two mediums closer together, would have the inclusion of some photorealism paintings helped bridge the gap, who knows. It did highlight how the old masters work influenced contemporary photographers, primarily in composition and form.
So the perceived aim of photorealistic paintings is to emulate the look and quality of photographically produced images, which on numerous occasions they have done so with such beauty. Still, I ask why, if this is the aim then why not just take a picture. Does the work get any more recognition because of how it is constructed? I know that photographs that have had some faux art filter applied to them through Photoshop are generally dismissed and mocked at by the photographic establishment. You would never see a portrait; which has had, say the Adobe Pixel Bender filter of ‘Oilpaint’ applied to it winning a prestigious prize such as the Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize.
It does question what element warrants a photorealist paintings distinction; is its appreciation based upon the final resolution as a pleasing image or the understanding of the skilful process involved in its creation. I know that I now appreciate photorealistic paintings more so than their possible photographic counterparts.
Yet is it inspired or imitated, in such cases did a photo come first and we observe a carefully crafted copy, does the process make the artist? What do you think?
8 thoughts on “Photorealism”
Leave a Reply
> Next Post Lunch at the OCA?
< Previous Post OCASA Vacancies
OCA MA Fine Art: In conversation with Riette van Rensburg
0 Comments
The OCA MA Fine Art team have been working with their students to undertake...
Read more
Tutor News – Katrina Whitehead
6 Comments
Some of you will know me as your personal tutor, or you may have...
Read more
Student Stories: Julia McLean
2 Comments
OCA Photography Program Leader Dan Robinson caught up with Julia McLean about her experience...
Read more
Artlab23 Collective
0 Comments
The aim of the Collective is to provide a mutually supportive environment which will...
Read more
Your misattribution doesn’t surprise me, painting and photography are transformative processes. To paint the photograph transforms it but in reproduction the painting is transformed back into a photograph.
I’d seen Richter’s work in reproduction before but it wasn’t until I saw the actual paintings at his NPG 2009 Portraits show that I really understood the implications and how much the activity speaks to the process of photography, of painting and the important property of image as object.
Viewed as objects at their intended size the marks were actually very painterly and didn’t have the impenetrable gloss of a particular genre of hyper real paintings. In fact they were penetrable in the way film is. Zoom into a piece of film and one quickly arrives at apparently random squiggles that give no clue as to the image they are representing cf. Chuck Close. Zoom in even closer and all you will see is the space between, the image has completely evapourated.
As an adjunct this dramatises a profound difference between the analogue image and the digital image, on zooming into the digital image we are very quickly faced with a brick wall of irreducible repetitively uniform blocks of pure colour.
This practice isn’t simply about making a copy of something that’s already perfectly well described, it reveals how complex our relationships are with representations of the ‘real’ through the deployment of the abstract and questions, as the practices so often do, the equation between the representation of reality and the representation of truth.
The initial misunderstanding is perfectly understandable. Of course, what you’d seen was a photograph. A photograph of a painting. So much of what is seen today is mediated that it’s often shocking to be in the presence of any physical thing, which can include photographs. I remember seeing Boyd Webb’s large Cibachromes in the 1980s. They’re photographs composed like paintings. The one I first saw was ‘Nourish’, I think. Subsequently, Jeff Wall has become a master of making large, complex photographs that allude to the history of narrative painting.
But back to photorealism. Making such an image requires a kind of attention to detail that is often glossed over in contemporary painting, which is often about capturing a gesture or is simply the by-product of activity, in other words a document of something that happened. The Richter has had hours of care lavished on it. That doesn’t make it art in and of itself, otherwise a body sculpted at a gym would qualify. It does say something about labour though, I think. You know that the whole image has been attended to. But what really counts in any case – photographic or painted – is the result of the work and the effect it has. Richter’s work has, I believe, real clout. Would this painting have the same impact if it were a photograph (and I bet there’s a reference print somewhere)? Possibly not. Richter has chosen to present this thing and not something else. He’s probably incorporating a comment on the futility of his facility, too. He was trained as a Socialist Realist painter in the old East Germany, but this figure is drained of ideology, and even looks away. That’s me projecting a little, but it doesn’t seem a stretch.
Boyd Webb: http://www.mobydickbigread.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Chapter-5-Nourish-©-Boyd-Webb-1984.jpg
Jeff Wall: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwkk1sUqg21qghk7bo1_1280.jpg
I think that the underlying point about photo-realist or super-realist painting is the way that it subverts the media; both photography and painting itself. The point about a photograph, is that we have grown up with the idea that whatever is photographed must have been placed in front of the camera; it must have existed; it is, as Peirce had it, it is an index of the subject where as the painting is an interpretation of a subject that may exist only in the mind of the painter, it is in Peirce’s terms an icon. Now, when a more or less contemporary painter whether that be the American Andrew Wyeth http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78455, the British painters George Shaw http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/george-shaw or Harry Holland http://harry-holland.com/ or Richter himself, confounds our expectation of a painting by giving us something that we don’t immediately recognise as a painting we tend to ask different questions of it than if it were either a photograph or an more ‘normal’ albeit figurative, painting. We ask, “Why not a photograph?” for a start; we question the modality of the image, the relationship of the image to reality and truth (whatever they may be); we tend to think about the relationship of fantasy to reality and although we may always ask some or all of these questions the subversion of the medium makes us ask them all the more strongly. It may even make us apply criteria of the other medium, we may judge Wall as though he were a painter, Richter as a photographer and we certainly are likely to be disturbed by the lack of people in Shaw’s work; surely were they photographs (and seeing them in the flesh they obviously are not) they would have some people in them.
It is as much about out expectations of the particular medium as the actuality of the image but unfortunately many viewers are swept away by the craft skill and fail to see the image itself…and maybe that is part of the point!
There is currently an excellent retrospective of photo realism at Birmingham Museum and art Gallery until end of March http://www.bmag.org.uk/events?id=2740
It covers most of the key American painters (Richard Estes etc) from the 1960s upto the present. That said, it focuses mainly on the hyperrealists and misses out on the wider spectrum of more experimental photo realists (to which I would include Richter) exploring the representation of “reality” in photography and digital media.
I think the painstaking, labour intensive aspect does cause the viewer to consider the subject more carefully than if it were a photograph. Why was this specific image selected? This seems to be why so many seemingly random or innocuous street scenes are featured. Suburban snapshots take on new significance and maybe we look again at our own surroundings. Tim Gardner specialises in these, but his deceptively simple watercolours are incredibly photorealistic. Again, not in the Birmingham exhibition, but well worth seeking out.
Working methods vary. It’s not necessarily the case that the painter has “just” copied a photograph. Some artists work from many photos and sketches to produce composite paintings that may have the appearance of a photograph but in fact cannot actually be captured in reality.
There is some Chuck Close work in that exhibition too Andhowe -I thought it was worth going just for that. No Richter unfortunately though.
The rest of the exhibition I just couldn’t see the point of, other than as a document of empty labor. The results seem like simulacra of simulacra, a flat representation of superficial realities. I guess I’m just not at all a fan of American photorealism of the hyper-real variety! The most convincing argument I have read for it is that it portrays America and this flat superficial quality is appropriate for that time and place – that this superficial reality is all there is.
I’ll look for a reference on that later
But for me Chuck Close and Richter are entirely different – their work seems to me to be engaged with what a representation of reality is and how we perceive it, for them reality doesn’t equate to the straightforward illusion of surface appearances and so their work seems to me so much more rewarding to our attention.
Richter’s work also seems to me to be about what a photograph might tell us about reality beyond empty appearances, about the photograph as object in itself, doing this using paint brings aspects of it to conscious attention by transforming into another media. I don’t know how much that is my projection! As I still haven’t seen his work in reality:-)
There’s a review of the exhibition here, it would probably make a better case if it hadn’t resorted to Brummie accent remarks though!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/10493939/Photorealism-at-Birmingham-Museum-review.html
I’m fascinated by these types of painting and how they look almost real. Harry Holland’s blog is very interesting http://blog.harry-holland.com. His latest post describes the differences between photographs he uses as a ‘tool’ and his intention when he translates these into his paintings.
Thanks for this interesting post, Russell and I’m glad it’s generated such a rich response. I too have had a long standing interest in photorealist painting – partly too because I’ve struggled to fathom the point of it! Like many I came to photography through painting and realised that the photographs I used to work from were much more satisfying and interesting than the process of painting. But indeed it says a lot about photography and why we photograph. I saw a great show by the Californian painter Robert Bechtle http://gladstonegallery.com/artist/robert-bechtle/work#&panel1-1 some years ago in San Francisco: Richter meets Egglestone meets the family album.
Richter’s portrait of Betty is very slightly out of focus. I find it interesting when painters exploit aspects of photography that are not just about detail. All mediums have their shortcomings and these can provide a rich seam to plunder. Cameras focus differently from the eyes and this can be played around with. Notions of focus -sharp and out of focus, multi- focal points, as well as plays with depth of field can really add to a photoreal painting (as well as non photo-real ones!). Personally, I don’t find the hyper-real ones so interesting, perhaps because the focus is all the same. Similarly, perspective is something that cameras see differently from the eye and this is a fascinating area. Finally, some photoreal painters are dispassionate about what they include, yet others exaggerate things and omit others. Unless you see the photograph alongside it is not easy to tell how they have responded to it.
.