Art in decadence?

[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