Art in decadence?

[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.