Art in decadence?

[arewethereyet]

That's your subjective opinion.

Subjective does not mean arbitrary. Anyway, the visual arts have been in decay IMHO since Marcel DuChamp. Too self-referencial.

That is your preference and therefore arbitrary.

ADJECTIVE

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system
   

[Anomalocaris]

I have been getting into paintings lately, and I am inclined to believe painters nowadays lack the mastery, elegance and symbolism of the masters of old, such as Vermeer.

Perhaps the same can be said about literature, with writers such as Dante still unmatched?

Is this a subjective perception, or can it be objectively proven?

I love me some Dante, but I don't think his work is necessarily unmatched.

But when it comes to stuff like painting, well, let's face it: the reason there's no more Vermeers in the art world is because they don't need Vermeer. Why spend so much time painting a scene as meticulously realistic as Vermeer did when you could probably get the same effect with a camera?


Photo by Ralph Eggleston.

I'm inclined to think that, once photography hit it big, the sort of realistic detail prized in, say, the old Dutch masters, became obsolete. The objective became obsolete, and, for better or for worse, painting became about the subjective.

Realism per se as would be equalled or surpassed by photography is not the central artistic value of detailed realism.   The central artistic value is the conveying or evoking of more than what could be on any snap shot of reality by the means of a perceptually convincing representation of a counterfeit reality.

The technique that theoretically might equip its wielder with the capacity to rival, say, the old Dutch masters would be computer rendering, not photography.     But computer rendering as is it commonly done now seems to me to still be too wedded to coolness of surpassing the technical mastery of realism, and had not really begun to explore evocative qualities that distinguish great painting of realism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I have been getting into paintings lately, and I am inclined to believe painters nowadays lack the mastery, elegance and symbolism of the masters of old, such as Vermeer.

Perhaps the same can be said about literature, with writers such as Dante still unmatched?

Is this a subjective perception, or can it be objectively proven?

I love me some Dante, but I don't think his work is necessarily unmatched.

But when it comes to stuff like painting, well, let's face it: the reason there's no more Vermeers in the art world is because they don't need Vermeer. Why spend so much time painting a scene as meticulously realistic as Vermeer did when you could probably get the same effect with a camera?


Photo by Ralph Eggleston.

I'm inclined to think that, once photography hit it big, the sort of realistic detail prized in, say, the old Dutch masters, became obsolete. The objective became obsolete, and, for better or for worse, painting became about the subjective.

And yet, there are working artists today who have rivaled the realism of photography.

---

---

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

I love me some Dante, but I don't think his work is necessarily unmatched.

But when it comes to stuff like painting, well, let's face it: the reason there's no more Vermeers in the art world is because they don't need Vermeer. Why spend so much time painting a scene as meticulously realistic as Vermeer did when you could probably get the same effect with a camera?


Photo by Ralph Eggleston.

I'm inclined to think that, once photography hit it big, the sort of realistic detail prized in, say, the old Dutch masters, became obsolete. The objective became obsolete, and, for better or for worse, painting became about the subjective.

And yet, there are working artists today who have rivaled the realism of photography.

---

---

Boru

I think these painting sells primarily for the curiosity value of a painting so realistic it can be mistaken for photograph,  not for the evocative qualities of a veneer.     

In some ways the draw of a painting so realistic it can be mistake for a photograph is similar to the circuits sideshow draw of a men so strong he could match the pull of a ox

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To each his own, I suppose. I find the one of the old woman to be highly evocative. She looks as if she’s recalling a pleasant memory, makes me wonder what it is.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I'm inclined to think that, once photography hit it big, the sort of realistic detail prized in, say, the old Dutch masters, became obsolete. The objective became obsolete, and, for better or for worse, painting became about the subjective.

I think there's no doubt that photography has taken over some of the functions that drawing used to do. 

For example, tourists used to buy engravings showing the famous sites they had visited, whereas today they get picture postcards, or, more likely, take their own photos. Documentary evidence, or newspaper-type pictures done to convey information are better done with a camera.

It's important to note, though, that human beings don't see the way that a camera does. 

A camera only has one eye, whereas people have two, usually. The camera documents a split second of time, whereas people's perception lasts over some amount of time. Most importantly, a camera records every detail within the frame with equal clarity, and gives equal importance to every point. Human beings, famously, focus on what's interesting to them. They can completely ignore things that are right up front if there's something of more interest nearby. This automatic, unconscious editing makes our visual impressions different from a camera's. 

We don't know what the street looked like during the time Vermeer painted it, so we don't know how much he edited. Nearly all artists, even those ambitious of "realism," will fudge things. For example, if a tree and a pole are lined up so one is exactly behind the other, it's normal for an artist to shift his viewpoint just a bit to make their spatial relation clearer. It's very likely that Vermeer adjusted and edited quite a bit, because his goal was not documentary accuracy but a well-composed painting. 

We live in a mechanical age so somehow we have got the idea that what cameras see is "more real" than what humans see. But in fact it's very different. There is a sense in which a Picasso drawing is more accurate to human perception, because he will make the interesting bits bigger, the uninteresting bits smaller, and show different angles of a single object. A camera wouldn't be able to see the front and back of a woman at the same time, but a person could if he looks for a few minutes, and the model is rolling around, and Picasso is happy to show that. 

(The false idea that cameras show the truth while human perception doesn't is unfortunately emphasized in Chinese and Japanese, where the word for "photograph" is shashin 写真 -- literally "copy truth." Whoever made that up must have been in the business of selling cameras.)

[Rev. Rye]

And yet, there are working artists today who have rivaled the realism of photography.

---

---

Boru

I think these painting sells primarily for the curiosity value of a painting so realistic it can be mistaken for photograph,  not for the evocative qualities of a veneer.     

In some ways the draw a painting so realistic it can be mistake for a photograph is similar to the circuits sideshow draw of a men so strong he could match the pull of a ox

And, let's be realistic, looking at Vermeer's paintings, only two museums worldwide have four paintings by Vermeer: the Rijksmuseum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The former has hardly any modern art, but the latter? Those artworks Boru linked to aren't there. The modern art department of the Met is dominated by artists who decided they no longer needed to focus on a realistic representation of something so they could focus more on the purity of the evocation. And if you don't think photos can be evocative? 

It doesn't necessarily have to be either/or when it comes to evocativeness or realism, but let's face it, realism is hard and once it became clear they didn't have to be beholden to it, it got left behind by the art world.

[arewethereyet]

I'm inclined to think that, once photography hit it big, the sort of realistic detail prized in, say, the old Dutch masters, became obsolete. The objective became obsolete, and, for better or for worse, painting became about the subjective.

I think there's no doubt that photography has taken over some of the functions that drawing used to do. 

For example, tourists used to buy engravings showing the famous sites they had visited, whereas today they get picture postcards, or, more likely, take their own photos. Documentary evidence, or newspaper-type pictures done to convey information are better done with a camera.

It's important to note, though, that human beings don't see the way that a camera does. 

A camera only has one eye, whereas people have two, usually. The camera documents a split second of time, whereas people's perception lasts over some amount of time. Most importantly, a camera records every detail within the frame with equal clarity, and gives equal importance to every point. Human beings, famously, focus on what's interesting to them. They can completely ignore things that are right up front if there's something of more interest nearby. This automatic, unconscious editing makes our visual impressions different from a camera's. 

We don't know what the street looked like during the time Vermeer painted it, so we don't know how much he edited. Nearly all artists, even those ambitious of "realism," will fudge things. For example, if a tree and a pole are lined up so one is exactly behind the other, it's normal for an artist to shift his viewpoint just a bit to make their spatial relation clearer. It's very likely that Vermeer adjusted and edited quite a bit, because his goal was not documentary accuracy but a well-composed painting. 

We live in a mechanical age so somehow we have got the idea that what cameras see is "more real" than what humans see. But in fact it's very different. There is a sense in which a Picasso drawing is more accurate to human perception, because he will make the interesting bits bigger, the uninteresting bits smaller, and show different angles of a single object. A camera wouldn't be able to see the front and back of a woman at the same time, but a person could if he looks for a few minutes, and the model is rolling around, and Picasso is happy to show that. 

(The false idea that cameras show the truth while human perception doesn't is unfortunately emphasized in Chinese and Japanese, where the word for "photograph" is shashin 写真 -- literally "copy truth." Whoever made that up must have been in the business of selling cameras.)

It's quite obvious that what you consider art is what we all should consider art.  Sort of like it's your religion and you want everyone to agree with you.

Now you are bashing the importance of photography.  Why?  Is it that 'how much time it takes' thing again?

Capturing moments allow people to relive and refresh their memories.

Maybe I want to see a picture of something from the past.  That my collection of photographs aren't hanging in some gallery doesn't mean they mean nothing to anyone.  

I have three photos of family members that I bought from an art studio.  One of them is a pic from 1945 of my mother getting her vaccination from the traveling county nurse.  When I purchased it, I was told that photo was hanging in a lot of homes across the country.  It would appear that the photo, a piece of history, was appreciated by many.

[Macoleco]

It seems to me some of you believe that Realistic Painting evokes no emotion or lacks symbolism.

Vermeer paintings indeed had a tone of realism, but they also portrayed a message of Vermeer's life, and personal life.
The kind of paintings that talk to you, and even by staring at them for hours you feel there is an undescribable message or meaning.

Vermeer objective was not to create "realistic images/pictures" of his era. His paintings also have a "subjective" aspect to them.

[Fake Messiah]

It seems to me some of you believe that Realistic Painting evokes no emotion or lacks symbolism.

Vermeer paintings indeed had a tone of realism, but they also portrayed a message of Vermeer's life, and personal life.
The kind of paintings that talk to you, and even by staring at them for hours you feel there is an undescribable message or meaning.

Vermeer objective was not to create "realistic images/pictures" of his era. His paintings also have a "subjective" aspect to them.

What do you want to dictate what people will like in art? Like in the Soviet Union. I remember watching a clip in black and white in some documentary form Soviet TV how they berate on Western art. They showed paintings by Salvador Dali and said how Western art is sick and decadent, while the real art are portraits of Lenin.

In the West, nobody is forcing you to like anything.