The Death of Realism? Photos, Prints, Projectors, and More.

In a previous post, I wrote about the novelty of realism: how appreciating the ability of an artist to produce something realistic was akin to the joy we feel when we see the world's tallest man, largest piece of gum, or other gimmicky equivalent.

Now, I would argue that realism is dead. Consider the following: While the rate at which you can produce a realistic painting, for example, might demonstrate a gift, the irony is that your ability to mass produce realistic art will ultimately increase the supply and detract from the exclusivity of the piece likely making it less valuable. At the same time, we, as artists, have powerful tools at our disposal that make the manufacturing of realism child's play. Such tools include cameras, grids, projectors, PhotoShop, and even printers.

Now, more than ever, we are forced to place emphasis on the concept behind the art, rather than its physical production quality. If we are going to produce art that is heavily weighted toward the concept, however, why don't we just write an essay or short story instead? What value is the visual medium really adding? For one: the visual medium, at least in the case of a painting, has an immediacy to it. Unlike a film or written piece, it does not require a heavy investment of time on the part of the viewer.

More to come in another post. For now: agree? disagree? discuss in the comments below.

Anti-Art Films: Just as Much Fun as the Real Thing

Art films - why do we so quickly call them art while we so quickly call those in our local theaters trash? To be honest, I am seldom moved by a film I see at the local museum or gallery. Perhaps it is because I am preonditioned by the walls of paintings to have the attention span of a gold fish or perhaps it is simply because I don't want to watch someone push an ice block around a city street while a man bangs a gong.

Art films - it is as if the context of the local museum or gallery establishment is in it of itself enough to grant an object a profound existence that we then take in as viewers as a profound, art experience.

In the spirit of art-films, I have created a series of anti-art films that self-manifest the feel of a museum or gallery and ask you, the viewer, one question: does the content even matter? My film "The Wall" is available below. For a full listing, visit: www.youtube.com/artaboutus.

What is Art? The Novelty of Realism

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.