Comments on: Too Real? http://www.spaceabovethecouch.com/2007/06/14/125/ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:41:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1 by: Neal Dench http://www.spaceabovethecouch.com/2007/06/14/125/#comment-10566 Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:06:00 +0000 http://www.spaceabovethecouch.com/2007/06/14/125/#comment-10566 I tend to swing between two extremes when it comes to photo-realistic work. On the one hand, some of my favourite pieces are decidedly not photo-realistic, and I too cringe at the believe that "it must be good because it looks like a photograph". On the other hand, it is hard not to be impressed by, for instance, a lot of Chuck Close's work (though I agree with you that it's his later work that I admire the most). I think the problem is, at least for the majority of people, that it is far easier to admire the technical aptitude in a photo-realistic work, than it is to admire the message behind the piece. But all art has two components: technical, and "composition" (I use that term very loosely and in no specific way, you understand, to refer to the bits of a piece that aren't considered technical!). Without wishing to seem snobby, I think that for many people, the technical side of a photo-realistic work closes them off to appreciation of the "composition" side. I.e., show most people an identical photograph, and they wouldn't get it, though, in truth, a photograph would be just as much a piece of art. I think this is why so many people, even today, don't see photography as art, and why so much photography concentrates on the technical aspect. Similarly, of course, many people are unable to see the technical excellence of many non-photo-realistic works. That's probably a gross over-generalization, but I hope you see what I meant. As an aside, I didn't realise that the short-list for this year's award was out yet. I went to the exhibition at the NPG last year and was very impressed. FWIW, it didn't strike me at the time as being overly photo-realistic, but looking back at the website now, I see that it was. Perhaps that's the difference between seeing a print of something (or, in this case, a picture on the web) and seeing it in the flesh. I tend to swing between two extremes when it comes to photo-realistic work. On the one hand, some of my favourite pieces are decidedly not photo-realistic, and I too cringe at the believe that “it must be good because it looks like a photograph”. On the other hand, it is hard not to be impressed by, for instance, a lot of Chuck Close’s work (though I agree with you that it’s his later work that I admire the most).

I think the problem is, at least for the majority of people, that it is far easier to admire the technical aptitude in a photo-realistic work, than it is to admire the message behind the piece. But all art has two components: technical, and “composition” (I use that term very loosely and in no specific way, you understand, to refer to the bits of a piece that aren’t considered technical!). Without wishing to seem snobby, I think that for many people, the technical side of a photo-realistic work closes them off to appreciation of the “composition” side. I.e., show most people an identical photograph, and they wouldn’t get it, though, in truth, a photograph would be just as much a piece of art. I think this is why so many people, even today, don’t see photography as art, and why so much photography concentrates on the technical aspect.

Similarly, of course, many people are unable to see the technical excellence of many non-photo-realistic works.

That’s probably a gross over-generalization, but I hope you see what I meant.

As an aside, I didn’t realise that the short-list for this year’s award was out yet. I went to the exhibition at the NPG last year and was very impressed. FWIW, it didn’t strike me at the time as being overly photo-realistic, but looking back at the website now, I see that it was. Perhaps that’s the difference between seeing a print of something (or, in this case, a picture on the web) and seeing it in the flesh.

]]>