Why Realism?

Any art lover has probably at one point or another, found themselves in the debate over ‘is this art’. Whether it was a circle or stripe on a canvas that sold for millions or an empty canvas… erm yeah, or a photo-realistic painting the size of a house. It seems that everyone has a black and white opinion as strong as the gender issue when it comes to the question of ‘is this art’. What makes this subject harder to argue about, is that you cannot simply rely on scientific facts to back up your argument. But then, is this question even answerable?

I think our opinions surrounding this have largely been shaped by others as we’ve grown up, rather than by spending a lot of time questioning this idea ourselves. A bit like most other beliefs we have. Some definitions and I mean dictionary definitions, say that ‘Art consists of paintings, sculpture, and other pictures or objects which are created for people to look at and admire or think deeply about.’ Other definitions say ‘Works produced by human creative skill and imagination.’ So actually it’s not hard to find a definition of art at all. Yet, why all the strong negative opinions?

I recently read a long thread where people were arguing about this subject and almost all of the comments revolved around the idea of skill versus imagination. Some were adamant that the skill required to create a realistic representation with paint is what makes it art and others were adamant that this simply does not qualify it as art. Funny because wouldn’t that disqualify almost the entire Louvre Museum from being art? And similarly, a sculpture like the David sculpture by Michelangelo, no one would ever deny that this is art. Yet it is as realistic as it comes. And yes, of course, many renaissance paintings required imagination for the compositions, but mostly it was realistic representations of real people in real settings or popular narratives, painted as realistically as possible. The skill is what people pay every day to see in the Louvre. (Though I realise the realism of painting a centaur is debatable.)

The ‘other side’ to the realism debate mostly argued that imagination with the skill to execute that imagination is what defines something as art and therefore throwing faeces at a canvas is more art than a Vermeer? Erm, ok. Except in this case they contradict themselves because they are tipping the scale all the way to imagination and entirely away from the skill side. So it’s an equally warped and unbalanced argument. So, is there some magical equation to figure out the balance of skill plus imagination necessary for something to qualify as art?

Ultimately, I think ‘art’ can be found in far more places than any of us have previously thought. The question for each individual is simply whether or not a particular piece causes them ‘to think deeply’ or evokes ‘admiration’ of some sort, despite whether or not the onlooker understands the level of imagination and skill that was required. Even I have had to relent and admit that the circle on the canvas is art. It’s just that it doesn’t cause me to think deeply or evoke any kind of admiration. However, that doesn’t disqualify it as being art, since I myself am not the ultimate judge of what qualifies as skill & imagination.

So why realism? Because of the skill? Sure. Because of the imagination? Yes; even though the imagination was expressed using real-life objects/subjects with subtlety of nuance, composition, symbolism or lighting. Sometimes the imagination is simply in the ability to see something worth capturing forever, perhaps in a glimpse of someone’s expression and the skill is immortalizing it through pigments on a canvas. For me, this evokes emotion, admiration and causes me to think deeply. How about you?

www.cobabeukman.com