Like any pretentious artist, I completely reject the labels that are most frequently ascribed my work. “Realist” or “Photo-realism” are two examples of the terms which are mistakenly used to describe paintings that “look real,” and however useful these labels might be (most people will understand what they are trying to communicate), they are not entirely accurate. The term is usually meant to denote a fidelity to observed reality and empiricism, but there are many forms of this kind of work and the term “realism” carries social and political baggage along with it. This topic is far too large for one post, but here is a starting point.
“Realism” actually refers to a specific movement in the 19th century, which was a rejection of classicism in favor of painting the world as it is with regards to content. Courbet is a good example of the quintessential realist- the label is not describing his fidelity to linear perspective or the verisimilitude of his illusion- no, it is referring to his choice of subject matter. Indeed, the mission of the realists was to depict the world warts and all. Despite his wishes to accurately portray the realities of the world, Courbet and those like him invariably had to construct scenes and narratives using models and props, and in general were more interested in communicating the spirit of the real, as they saw it, rather than an objective truth.
“Photo-realism” is also a very specific term, referring to an art movement (why are they all called movements?) that began in the US in the 70’s. Robert Bechtle, whose painting is featured above, is a great example. He shares the realist impulse to depict humble subject-matter, but his method invariably uses photography as the source imagery. The photo-realist displays utter fidelity to the photograph- often using mechanical methods of transcription like gridding to complete the image. Unlike other artists that came before who used photography to create paintings (think Manet), the photo-realists made no attempts to obscure their source imagery, even if that meant including a lens distortion or blur. Personally, I don’t completely understand the point of photorealism. Maybe you can explain it to me.
Finally, as an example of another form of realism, here is an image by Antonio Lopez Garcia. Though it may seem entirely similar to the photo-realist painting, this work is set apart based on the fact that it was created from observation of the actual location. In this way, the painting is not a moment frozen in time like a photograph, but is a synecdoche, a single image standing in representation of an extended period of time. Though this work is realist in the sense that he is paying attention to mundane subject-matter, his concerns are different than Courbet’s in that he is entirely concerned with depicting the world from life, the experience of observation. He does not construct narratives to get at a deeper social truth, like the neorealists. He is a Phenomenological painter.
Next time, I will talk about the encompassing term “illusionism” and how it better describes what people usually mean when they say someone is a “realist.” Also, I’d like to talk about realism in other mediums, such as film or performance. It’s a big can of worms.