Real realism

Published on 07.01.2024

In this essay I am going to talk about an artistic framework which concerns itself with perception of reality. First, I will focus on why perception of reality appears to be an important subject in today’s world, then I will discuss artistic means that might be suitable for treating that subject. It is my hope that this text will contribute to establishing a new practice which I suggest to call (somewhat arbitrarily) “real realism”.

Motivation

The role of intention

The invention of photographic film once made the visual arts seek values other than accurate reproduction of observable reality. This direction proved fertile for more than a century. Now artists are facing a different challenge: AI technologies demonstrate that they can, or soon will be able to, produce output that is on par or superior to human creativity in purely technical terms. This is the future that cannot be avoided, no matter how many open letters people write in attempts to hold the technology back. The solution is to search, once again, for alternative values. It appears logical that the new values in art should be something that technology cannot mimic. It should be something that puts human intention above technical merits. We should learn to ask how and why something came to be rather than simply admiring its properties. New art is in intentions, and that’s something a computer will not have for a while.

The idea that the intentions behind art matter is not new. In fact, a big part of art of the last century did have interesting intentions behind it. The new twist is that intentions now become more important and even necessary. In other words, there cannot be a work of art without a good reason behind it. Under this view, a work of art can no longer be simply a physical object of art, it becomes a combination of a physical object and the artist’s intention behind it.

What can be said of the relationship between the two components of such a composite artwork—the object and the intention? Assuming that we follow the traditional approach of appreciating art through observing the object first, it makes sense to stipulate that the second component of the artwork—the intention—is communicated to the audience in some way, otherwise perception of the artwork would be incomplete. For the intention to reach the audience it has to be either explainable or inferable or both.

If the intention is explainable, one approach to stating the intention is through language. In this case the intention is to be explained in the written form either as a title or a description, or indeed a written piece like this one which is then to be referenced when the corresponding artwork is exhibited.

If the intention is inferable, but not explicitly explained, it is necessary to have a collection of works that explore the same intention from different angles. This way the public is given a chance to understand what the intention might have been without the need for an explicit explanation. This approach requires multiple artworks, since a single artwork cannot pinpoint the intention unambiguously. If only a single artwork is available, or the number of artworks is insufficient for unambiguous inference of the intention by the observer in question, it still makes sense to talk about the inferred intention, even if it does not yet match the original artistic intention and needs further refinement.

Next, let us suppose that the intention is explained through language but it is in conflict with what the audience perceives when observing the physical object itself, that is, the inferred and the explained intention differ. In this case either the explanation is incorrect or the object fails to implement the intention as stated. Such a pair object-intention does not work. Indeed, the only way it could work is if the discrepancy between the inferred and the explained intention were intentional; if it were intentional it should have been part of the explained intention, but in that case the audience would not find the explained intention and the inferred intention in conflict anymore. Therefore, the explained intention (if it is provided) and the inferred intention have to be compatible.

What intentions are worth having in contemporary art? Are all intentions equally art-worthy? This is a difficult question, but perhaps we could make the first step towards answering it by considering the most obvious intentions:

  • Creation of beautiful objects.
  • Pursuit of novelty or uniqueness.
  • Making profit.

Since these intentions can be by default claimed for any work of art they are trivial, in the sense that they do not add anything of value to the physical object that is exhibited. Therefore, they do not fit the approach where the intention is as valuable as the physical object being exposed.

The real realist intention

Let us now start working towards an intention that is non-trivial and central to this essay. One goal of art is to focus on things that are less known, scarce, poorly understood, or about to disappear. For example, it is no coincidence that the impressionists were in love with the countryside and the peasant lifestyle. It was a natural response to industrialization. Many changes in today’s world are rapid and drastic, they fit in a person’s lifetime. However, there are also those that are more fundamental, slower, and therefore may not be obvious. One such change might have been happening throughout the whole human history and it concerns our perception of reality.

The word reality is broad and overloaded with meanings. In this text, whenever I say reality I mean human perception of reality, or to be even more pedantic direct perception of material world immediately surrounding the subject in real time. Therefore, I might talk about appreciation of reality, which should not be misunderstood as appreciation of everything that is real, since without a doubt there are many terrible things that are real, however no one should be persuaded to appreciate them.

Next, I am going to introduce a distinction between reality that transmits a cultural message (let us call this carrier reality) and reality that does not (let us call this raw reality). By cultural message I mean an interpretation of a human-made object by an individual. If we are to take the realist point of view, namely that reality exists independently of the observer, then for different people the same objective reality might or might not have a cultural message, let alone the same cultural message. The message can also vary in time, e.g. it can be updated based on new knowledge or experience.

At any given moment human attention can either be focused on reality or on some imaginary subject. When it is focused on reality, there are again two possibilities: it is either focused on carrier reality or on raw reality. Generally, it is not possible to perceive the same objective reality as both carrier and raw reality at the same time, i.e. it is not possible to see a painted canvas not as a conduit of some kind of artistic message (unless the observer has never seen a painting before and does not know that it is human-made).

Because of our social nature, carrier reality as an interpersonal medium has certain attractiveness that raw reality does not have. In other words, we are more interested in what others want to communicate to us via carrier reality than in observing raw reality which by definition does not transmit any cultural messages. Instances of carrier reality have been produced throughout human history at an ever-increasing rate. It can be argued that carrier reality in the form of books, recordings, artworks, etc. is a medium of culture and culture becomes increasingly important as we progress as a species. In today’s world computers (a particularly versatile type of carrier reality) occupy our attention more than any other type of object before. The internet in general and social networks in particular definitely claim a lot of real estate in our minds. Assuming this is only a continuation of a general trend, we could formulate a hypothesis:

Development of humanity progressively shifts the attention of people from raw reality to carrier reality.

Now, this seems plausible, yet it may or may not be true. It may be as well that there is a natural balance between the time an average person spends perceiving raw reality versus carrier reality. Even so, carrier reality probably receives much more attention than raw reality both through direct perception and through memory.

If it is true that raw reality receives progressively less attention or less attention than it could have received otherwise, then there is a basis for the real realist intention:

Resist the general trend in allocation of attention and explore raw reality more thoroughly.

One goal of real realism is to remind us that perception of reality is a great privilege, the foundation for everything else. Another goal of real realism is to call for a re-examination of where we are going and what we want to do with the latest technological advances.

Reality and art

The principal goal of real realism

Strictly speaking, there is no need in art for appreciation of reality. There is nothing preventing people from enjoying it outside of museums and galleries. Perceiving reality for its own sake is an infinitely more intimate and pure act compared to perceiving reality while also creating an artwork, since all kinds of extraneous considerations enter the artist’s mind in the latter case. One benefit of creating an artwork while perceiving reality is that while working on an artwork, reality is likely to be explored more fully and deeply than it is in everyday experience. This justifies artistic practice, i.e. production of instances of carrier reality in the context of exploration of its opposite—raw reality. However, if the goal of the artist is to explore raw reality more thoroughly through perception, there is no justification for preserving the resulting artworks. They can be destroyed as soon as they are completed or slightly later on the condition that they are not shown to anyone and no record of them remains. If the artworks are preserved on purpose or are intended to be made public, it means that the goal of the artist is not exploration of reality through perception or not only that. We will consider that case in the next section.

Let us define the principal goal of real realism (PGRR). It has to do with how an artwork is made:

A real realist artwork is created through an exercise of perception, by confronting a fragment of raw reality and paying full attention to it and without any intentional modifications both in the way observable raw reality is arranged and in the way it is represented.

The definition above seems to stipulate that a real realist artwork represents reality as closely as possible, but an artwork can only be abstraction of reality and it will never render it completely correctly to the last detail. How to resolve this conflict?

One possibility would be to strive for a representation that is accurate and contains as many details as possible, something close to e.g. photorealism in painting. It should be noted though that thorough execution takes a lot of time and is often incompatible with direct observation of reality since many subjects are often in constant change.

Another option would be to concentrate on intention rather than the result. Is the intention to represent reality faithfully through observation not enough? Indeed, does it matter what the result is as long as the artist honestly works towards a realistic rendition? The intention guarantees observation and that is all the PGRR is concerned with.

The interpretational goal of real realism

If an artwork is intended for the public and is not destroyed upon completion, it must be that the artist believes that the artwork is valuable for others. As per our earlier discussion, it has to be because it is a composite artwork consisting of the physical object and the corresponding non-trivial intention (the real realist intention in our case). If so, the intention needs to be explainable or inferable or both. The explained intention, if provided, also needs to be compatible with the inferred intention. Let us see how this can be achieved.

If a real realist artwork is intended for the public it necessarily acquires a cultural message, just like any other artwork. It would probably be interesting to try to avoid having a cultural message attached to a real realist artwork, but it seems to be impossible unless the public is never made aware that the artwork is to be regarded as an artwork, which contradicts the original premise that the artwork is intended for the public. Indeed, if the public is never made aware of the artwork it is the same kind of situation as if the artwork was immediately destroyed upon completion, possibly with the exception that the artist themselves knows of the artwork’s nature and existence. If the public becomes aware of the artwork at some point in the future, then by allowing such a possibility the artist effectively made the artwork available to the public just the same.

Since we cannot avoid having a cultural message attached to a real realist artwork, what is the most appropriate cultural message to have? It seems logical that it should be:

The artist has satisfied the principal goal of real realism while creating the artwork.

Let us call this the real realist message (RRM).

It is worth noting that a given artwork rarely has only one cultural message. Typically an artwork has one more obvious cultural message which we are going to call the primary cultural message and other, secondary cultural messages that are less prominent, similar to how a periodic signal has the first harmonic and higher harmonics. Secondary cultural messages are irrelevant for our discussion. They are less predictable and different individuals are more likely to infer different secondary cultural messages for the same artwork, while they might still agree on the same primary cultural message on the condition that they share the same culture.

At this point we can define the interpretational goal of real realism (IGRR). It has to do with the cultural message of a real realist artwork that has been made available to the public:

A real realist artwork has the real realist message as its primary cultural message.

The task of thinking about what others will think about an artwork is not new for artists, even though it has been somewhat less of an issue in the modernist era where the artist became free to explore their creativity and others were often left to their devices in understanding what the artist did and why. One can be vague in their art but as soon as they decide to make it public this uncertainty becomes part of the cultural message of the artwork in question. It may or may not be desirable. For real realism being vague is not desirable because it makes the impact of real realist art weaker, it becomes less clear what the point is.

So far we have defined cultural message as something that is specific to an individual. Individuals are many, how can the artist ensure that their work satisfies the IGRR? One could perhaps find a reasonable definition of objective cultural message, e.g. by averaging different interpretations of an artwork over a statistically significant group of people, but that approach is of no use to the artist at the moment of creation and it is most likely incompatible with the intimate nature of the PGRR. The solution, it seems, is to admit that the IGRR, just like the PGRR is all about the intention. The artist should try to anticipate what others will think and take that into account. There is not much more they can or should do.

The challenge in satisfying the IGRR is that not every artwork that satisfies the PGRR necessarily also satisfies the IGRR. To understand why we have to look more closely at how cultural messages work.

Recall that we defined cultural message as an interpretation of a human-made object by an individual. Such interpretations are backed by culture and happen in three ways:

  • through a title and/or description of the artwork provided by the author or otherwise,
  • through ad-hoc interpretation, when new meaning is inferred intuitively, or
  • through classification, when the individual is already familiar with comparable artworks and they conclude that the artwork under consideration is of the same class, therefore it has the same or a similar cultural message.

When it comes to the title and description, how do they interact with the cultural message inferred via interpretation and/or classification? There are two possibilities:

  • The title/description can enhance the cultural message if they corroborate it.
  • The title/description can contribute to a new cultural message if they are sufficiently different from the cultural message the artwork itself provokes. By “new cultural message” I mean such a message that accounts for the uncertainty or confusion that is brought about by the difference between the cultural message inferred by an individual via ad-hoc interpretation and/or classification and the title/description.

In connection with the IGRR where we have a clear goal regarding what kind of cultural message we want to provoke, it seems that only titles and descriptions that corroborate the RRM are acceptable. However, giving an artwork a title and/or description that is compatible with the RRM does not liberate the artist from also satisfying the IGRR through ad-hoc interpretation and/or classification.

Classification makes it possible to create an artwork that represents raw reality without any cultural message (e.g. a flower, which by itself is not a human-made object and so it does not have a cultural message), yet it ends up being assigned a cultural message because of our cultural baggage that guides us towards a more familiar interpretation (e.g. a painting of a flower is meant to show the beauty of the flower and/or be itself beautiful as an object). We are going to call this phenomenon message capture through classification (MCTC).

MCTC is the primary obstacle for fulfilling the IGRR. Cultural messages assigned through classification tend to be quite strong and therefore they often end up being perceived as primary cultural messages. On the other hand the RRM is not common or familiar, it is weak and is going to be readily shadowed by other cultural messages. Therefore, for an artwork to have the RRM as its primary cultural message, all stronger (more obvious) messages must be eliminated.

In the following sections I’m going to discuss how the two goals of real realism can be achieved in painting. I chose painting because it is the form of art with which I am most familiar and which seems suitable for real realistic practice. Some of the ideas from this essay might apply to other forms of art.

Reality through painting

Painting reality is different from painting a painting. The phrase “painting a painting” may be confusing, since the result of both approaches is a painting. By “painting reality” I mean that we paint in accordance with the PGRR or with both goals of real realism. By “painting a painting” I mean any other kind of painting. I chose “painting a painting” as the term because of the intention that lies at the core of the painting process:

  • When painting reality the intention is to do a kind of meditation through perception of reality and the resulting painting is but traces of that meditation.
  • When painting a painting the intention is to produce a painting that carries a cultural message intended by the artist (not the RRM).

Painting a painting typically has to do with one or more of the following:

  • Considerations for composition and harmony.
  • Purposeful alterations of observed reality.
  • Preparation, re-arrangement of reality before painting.
  • Sourcing the ideas from anything other than reality observed during the painting process.

It would appear that there should be at least an intersection between painting reality and painting paintings, since painting paintings can also be done by observation and sometimes with minimal intentional alterations. There might be, if such a work satisfies the PGRR and is never made public. As soon as it is made public the IGRR comes to the fore and in order to satisfy that goal the artwork in question has to be different from paintings the public is used to, because otherwise it would be a victim of MCTC.

Visual harmony and composition

Questions of visual harmony and composition are irrelevant for real realism. In that sense it is the logical culmination of the modernist (as in belonging to the modernist era) artistic practice that aimed to explore all forms of beauty in visual arts. If all forms of beauty have been explored and accepted, then composition and harmony disappear as notions. It does not matter how colors and lines are arranged on a flat surface. A real realist artwork derives its worth from the real realist intention—the honest and direct way in which it is created based on observation of reality by the artist. It also derives its worth from what observers recognize as its subject, that is, ideally nothing but raw reality.

Nevertheless, similar to the situation with the inevitability of cultural messages, all works of art have to assume a certain aesthetic in order to exist. It also must be accepted that considerations for beauty will inevitably enter the artist’s mind even if the artist is intending to produce a real realist artwork. They are so deeply ingrained in our collective mind that it is pointless to try to completely unroot them. Fortunately, within the real realist framework there is enough freedom for these considerations as long as they have a subordinate role to the goals of real realism and especially to the IGRR. It can also be argued that artists want to make works that are interesting. Without going into the ordeal of trying to give a definition of beauty and how beautiful things relate to interesting things, let us simply say that there is considerable creative freedom within the real realist approach and it is up to the artist to explore this freedom.

The notion of beauty is going to be mentioned later in this text, usually as something that real realism should avoid, however there is no contradiction. This section talks about the beauty of a flat painted surface in the most general sense; elsewhere, we talk about the idea of what is considered beautiful according to our cultural baggage. The latter typically lags behind the former.

Subject matter

The PGRR constrains the set of subjects to those that are physically reachable by the artist and observable for the period of time it takes to complete the painting. Working from photographs is obviously not compatible with the PGRR, since perceiving reality and perceiving a photograph of reality are two completely different things, unless the intention is to paint the photograph as a physical object itself, not the image in the photograph.

Subject matter contributes greatly to reaching the IGRR and is instrumental for avoiding MCTC. Not everything is suitable:

  • A wide range of subjects that are thought of as beautiful in our culture cannot be used (unless in a heavily cropped way, see the next section) since they broadcast the message “I want you to appreciate the beauty of X” and there is little that can be done to cancel it.
  • Certain subjects even though they are not usually thought of as beautiful per se, however have strong symbolic connotations attached to them (e.g. skulls will bring up the theme of vanitas). These should be avoided as well.
  • Certain arrangements or themes that may not have a clear message per se, but may be linked to the art movements of the past or suggest “deeper meaning” are to be avoided.
  • Many views of nature can no longer be depicted because this subject matter has been thoroughly used in the past and is strongly connected to the concept of beauty, hence most scenes with nature or vegetation in them will be in the danger of MCTC. Depicting landscape and nature in the real realist way is a big challenge. One solution could be to focus on most unattractive or polluted areas, but those also run the risk of giving the resulting artwork an ecological message (not that it is bad, it is simply not the same as the RRM).

No matter the main subject, it seems to be particularly beneficial for real realist works to include details that are present in reality but traditionally not included in paintings, e.g. a label on a pillow, cars in landscapes, etc.

Finally, it must be pointed out that even though real realist paintings may appear to treat this or that subject, fundamentally they always treat the same subject—reality itself. Reality cannot be shown or understood in its entirety, therefore only a fragment of reality is depicted in any given painting. Does it matter what fragment is shown as long as the goals of real realism are satisfied? It matters in the sense that the artist may find certain scenes more interesting than the others when it comes to exercising their perception, but no matter what is shown in a real realist painting it is at best only a link to the whole of reality that the audience can continue discovering on their own.

Framing

If we look at the world as a continuous 3D space of which we can choose bounded flat projections to paint, images that satisfy the IGRR lie in between images that are acceptable as artworks according to our cultural baggage.

Framing is an important tool in reaching the IGRR and avoiding MCTC. Its primary function is to discourage any meaningful (in the traditional sense) interpretation of a given scene through cropping of objects that might otherwise assume too much importance, so that the viewer is forced to perceive the image as a depiction of raw reality instead. This works because reality does not stop being reality even when there is not much to see. The only danger with cropping too much is that the resulting picture may start to look abstract and abstract art has a totally different cultural message. On the other hand even though through cropping we can completely avoid having the main subject in a real realist painting, there is no need to do so in every painting. By choosing rarely used subjects the IGRR can be achieved even without cropping them.

Another major concern when it comes to framing is the danger of having an image that satisfies the idea of a beautiful composition according to our culture. It is pretty common (especially in photography, but habits of visual perception quickly become universal) to have images of mundane objects that nevertheless are arranged in interesting and aesthetically satisfying ways. Pleasing arrangements are often understood as the cultural message and the intention behind such works, therefore they are going to provoke MCTC and should be avoided. In other words, the perceived beauty of composition “shadows” the actual raw reality in the minds of the viewers. This can be pretty annoying and cannot be solved by using e.g. unnatural positions or strange angles of view because such measures attract attention and become a source of competing cultural messages. The solution, it seems, is to use the most natural and unremarkable arrangements, the way the scene is typically seen in everyday life.

Colors and shapes

What colors and shapes should a real realist employ? The question is answered by the PGRR. Matching colors and shapes that the artist perceives promotes most careful and deep observation. If the artist were to choose colors and/or shapes that are different from those that they perceive, then careful observation would no longer be necessary. However, if the right color cannot be easily mixed or the right shape refuses to materialize, it is not a big problem. An artwork will always be only abstraction or an approximation of reality. The result matters much less than the act of working through perception of reality and the intention behind the work.

Mistakes and imperfections

Mistakes come from a failure to translate one’s perception in the painting medium, but they are perhaps not as unacceptable as some people might think. In a way, mistakes reveal how one processed reality there and then while painting the picture and so they are valid in the sense that like the correct parts they come from confronting reality and paying attention. Mistakes might well be the most profound record of the interaction between the artist and reality. Of course, it does not mean that one should be careless and freely commit any mistake whatsoever—that would be against the PGRR. The intention should be to paint accurately and true to perception. However, if there happen to be deviations that the artist does not correct e.g. because they do not notice them while painting, they are to be left alone and accepted as artifacts of the real realist process.

In general, any mistakes and imperfections whether introduced by the artist, low quality art supplies, or adverse conditions can be understood as an imprint or a signature of reality on the artwork and therefore are welcome.

Rendition and style

Given how saturated our culture is with imagery these days, the style of depiction does not make a difference when it comes to representation of reality. Because we are used to so many graphical styles, they are normalized in our perception. Be it photorealistic, impressionistic, flat, or other style of rendition, it is the subject matter and the framing that contribute most to depicting reality. There seems to be one rule though: reality should be recognizable as such and resemblance to abstract art is to be avoided. Abstract art is at the opposite pole of real realism.

In general, it does not matter how thick or thin the paint is, whether an artwork is assembled from pieces of rubbish or constructed in some other way, what is the most important part is the intention behind its creation and its cultural message.

The principle of maximal concentration

Since it is so important how a real realist artwork is made, it makes sense to apply the principle of maximal concentration, i.e. paint in such a way so that the artist is forced to stay concentrated all the time and pay full attention to reality. Here are some suggestions:

  • Preliminary sketches should be avoided, instead one should make drawing inseparable from painting.
  • Every part should be painted in the “direct” way so that the desired color is applied right away and every brush stroke stays where it is originally put. There should be no corrections, no painting over in order to adjust something.
  • There is no need to conceal that the painting is only traces of a meditation, it does not aim to be an illusion of reality. In fact, one should probably emphasize that it is about manipulating physical paint with all imperfections that come with it, with as little of mediation as possible. It is perhaps better to paint roughly rather than carefully. For example, it is a good idea to leave areas of white ground showing without any regard for how they interact with the picture visually.
  • A painting should be done quickly in one go and the artist should never go back to it in order to adjust something.

On photography

Photography seems to be well-suited to satisfy all of the constraints outlined above. If our freedom is primarily in choosing the subject and the framing, if the style of rendition does not matter, then why not use photography? The intuition here is not wrong, but if we are to consider photography as a real realist medium we have to start with the PGRR. It calls for:

  1. Observation of raw reality.
  2. No intentional modifications in the arrangement of raw reality.
  3. No intentional modifications in the way reality is represented.

(3) is automatically satisfied by the nature of the photographic process. (2) is trivial to follow. The real problem is (1), since photography does not require observation for taking a picture. Or rather it does, but for finding and composing a picture rather than for the process of actually taking it. The easy way would be to declare that some observation always happens in the photographic process and that is enough for it being a real realist medium. Some photographic mediums such as large format film photography encourage more observation, but is that enough? Can we make more observation necessary in a meaningful way?

Another problem has to do with the IGRR and the impact of photos that are made public. Photos became too common, they are too easily taken, and have become trivialized. Therefore I do not believe that photography makes the point as convincingly as painting when it comes to real realism. However, nothing of this matters if photography is practiced without making the resulting photographs public.

Real realism and realist movements in art history

Realism (mid-19th century)

Realism of the mid-19th century as practiced by such artists as Gustave Courbet and Jean-François Millet began as a reaction to romanticism. These artists wanted to show the “real” life of ordinary people, which was the opposite of the fixation on elevated emotions and individualism of romantics. Therefore, importantly, it was then already the subject matter rather than the technique that distinguished the realist approach. In a way, it was also a shift from emphasizing the inner towards recognition of the importance of observing the outer without embellishing it.

Real realism has the same kind of focus on what is real rather than how real it looks in the finished painting. It also has the same fundamental conviction that reality is interesting and art-worthy by itself, without any beautification. Fundamentally, realism is concerned with truth, while most other art movements are concerned with beauty in one way or another. (This does not exclude the overlap where reality is beautiful, although it is up to debate whether all reality is beautiful and whether all that is true is beautiful.) So, there are quite a few similarities between realism and real realism. When it comes to the differences, the realist movement of mid-19th century was largely (but not exclusively) about people, while real realism is about perception of reality and as such it does not have an obvious social agenda.

Impressionism

Impressionism is not normally regarded as a kind of realism, however allow me to list its characteristic features and argue for each of them that they are either compatible with realism or indeed even more realist than the preceding realist movement of mid-19th century:

  • The use of short broken brush strokes and the general rough, spontaneous, unfinished look. As we have seen in the previous section, the style of rendition does not necessarily make something more or less realist, or at least naturalistic rendition is not the only and perhaps not the main criterion by which realism of a work should be judged. The particular look of impressionistic works is also a consequence of a faster pace of work which is something impressionism and real realism have in common.
  • Painting en plein air means quite literally working by observing reality in real time and I think it is justified to say that it is more realist than artificial arrangements of figures done in the studio.
  • Attention to light and atmospheric conditions is attention to something quite real, therefore it is realist.

All in all, there is a considerable overlap between impressionism and real realism, to the point that impressionism could be regarded as a strong influence on real realism. The crucial differences come from the IGRR and the attempt to avoid MCTC—something that impressionism was never concerned with. Another difference is the strict position of real realism that reality should not be intentionally altered or embellished in the painting process.

Nouveau réalisme

Nouveau réalisme aimed to bring reality and art closer together and put everyday reality under the spotlight, so to speak. It also rejected the idea that art should mean something, which is roughly in line with real realism. However, real realism accepts that any artwork that is presented as such will be viewed as an artwork and not as a piece of raw reality, therefore it will be subject to interpretation and will be assigned a cultural message.

These are other differences between real realism and nouveau réalisme:

  • According to real realism, reality is art-worthy to the extent that no additional manipulation is required to make it interesting. An ordinary sponge in your bathroom is as interesting as Yves Klein’s blue sponge in a museum.
  • Even when no manipulation is performed, by taking pieces of reality and presenting them as artworks the link between a given piece of reality and its natural “habitat” is severed and it is no longer what it was.
  • Art-making does not need to be a show. If anything, it detracts from its essence and distorts its interpretation.
  • Real realism finds other ways to avoid “the traps of figurative art” and does not lose all hope when it comes to the medium of painting.

Photorealism and hyperrealism

Photorealism and hyperrealism are about the outward, the result, they are about appearances. Real realism is about the inner, the process, the intention. Photorealism is modernist in its reliance on photography, while it can be argued that real realism is romantic in its belief that only direct observation of reality is a valid means of appreciating it. Photorealism and hyperrealism take pride in the technicalities of execution, but to what end? Technical ability is the first thing that gets mastered by machines. Photorealist paintings can be generated and literally printed out without any significant effort. Is it still interesting or relevant to be able to do the printing part manually? What is gained in that process in our day and age?

Examples of works

Finally, here I’d like to give concrete examples of real realist paintings with short explanations.

Untitled

Untitled

The first real realist painting produced. In the absence of an obvious subject or message, the picture is likely to be interpreted as a depiction of raw reality.

Untitled

Untitled

Mundane subject matter and unconventional framing are used to depict reality itself. An interesting detail is the opened mailbox, which hints at carrier reality, however it is cropped so much that it cannot be perceived as the subject of the painting, only as a secondary detail.

Untitled

Untitled

Here both mundane subject matter and extreme cropping are used to prevent any conventional interpretation thus leaving the viewer with the realization that the subject is the raw reality itself.

Untitled

Untitled

Finally, this is an attempt to depict a view of nature in the real realist style.