In painting, realism turns the talent of the artist into nothing more than a novelty act of duplication, instilling a sense within the onlooker to compare the piece against its true form and make a judgement on the quality - in this case closeness - of the copy to something imaginably real. If close, the onlooker lets out a jubilant "hoo-haw," taking notice of the amazing ability of the artist to manisfest him- or herself as a flesh-and-blood Xerox machine.
But what about the story that the realistic piece tells, surely that is more than a novelty act? Perhaps, but what if I told that same story with something so obviously not art? For example, what if I were to recreate Da Vinci's The Last Supper using only stick figures? Would that be art? No, probably not.
Is realism a novelty act? What role does novelty play in creating a context that makes us feel an object is art? Comment below.
 |
| Da Vinci's The Last Supper with its aesthetics removed. |
