• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Ebooks
  • Media Appearances
  • Videos

Fineartebooks's Blog

~ Fine Art Blog

Fineartebooks's Blog

Tag Archives: realist art

Portraiture is Back: The Art of Enrique Flores-Galbis

08 Tuesday Feb 2011

Posted by Romantic and Postromantic Art in aesthetics, art blog, art criticism, art education, art history, Auguste Renoir, Claudia Moscovici, Enrique Flores-Galbis, Fragonard, history of art, hyper-realism, Impressionism, painting, portraiture, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Realism, Realist art, realist portraits, Salons

≈ Comments Off on Portraiture is Back: The Art of Enrique Flores-Galbis

Tags

aesthetics, art, art blog, art criticism, art history, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, Enrique Flores-Galbis, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, Fragonard, history of art, hyper-realism, Impressionism, portraiture, Portraiture is Back: The Art of Enrique Flores-Galbis, postromantic movement, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Realism, realist art, realist portraits, Romantic painting, Romanticism and Postromanticism, the art of portraiture

Before the Impressionists overturned many of the criteria established by the Academies and the Salons, the art of portraiture was considered to be the most important in the hierarchy of genres. Portraits of kings, queens and aristocrats were valued most, but there were notable exceptions to this trend. The Dutch Renaissance masters and, later, Chardin, made portraits of regular, middle class people (and their servants) not only acceptable, but also considered to be the highest form of art.

In several of my articles on this blog, I express some regret that with the advent of Modernism, postmodernism and, more generally, nonrepresentational art, we’ve lost so many valuable artistic traditions, including the art of realistic portraiture. The Cuban-born American artist Enrique Flores-Galbis helps brings portraiture back to our contemporary times. Trained at the New York University Graduate School under the photorealist, Adelle Weber, Enrique Flores-Galbis also received a Master of Fine Arts from the prestigious Parsons School of Design.

Great portraits can be appreciated by anyone: they’re nearly universal in their accessibility and appeal. Moreover, it takes great talent to execute them right, as Enrique Flores-Galbis clearly does. In Swing, shown below, the artist foregrounds a little girl, traditionally dressed, as if she were back from communion or Church. Her expression is frank and even a little awkward: exactly as it would be if she had posed for a photographer. In the background, we see featured Fragonard’s famous eighteenth-century Rococo painting, The Swing, commissioned by an aristocrat to feature the flirtatious games he played with his mistress. In this way, Flores-Galbis pays homage to the rich tradition of representational art to which his own painting belongs.

The painting Double Figure with Landscape, below, may be a study in forms (as its title suggests), but it’s also much more than that. Its vibrant colors and tender expression capture a mother’s love for her daughter. In managing to  express sweetness without any sentimentality, this painting also evokes–in theme, if not in style–some of Renoir’s paintings of the maternal bond.

As a cat lover, I can’t neglect the painting Cat, below. It has a generic title, but it’s adorably personal in capturing the cat’s expression: eyes fixated on the painter or viewer, ears cocked back, on the defensive. Cats don’t really pose for a camera or for a painter. There’s nothing postcard-ish or staged about this painting: Cat is a unique, endearing and personalized portrait.

You can see more of Enrique Flores-Galbis’s stunning realist portraits on his website, http://www.efgportraits.com/.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Did Photography Replace Realism? I Don’t Think so!

03 Friday Dec 2010

Posted by Romantic and Postromantic Art in aesthetic philosophy, aesthetics, After the end of art, art blog, art criticism, art versus pornography debate, Arthur Danto, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, postromanticism, Realism, Realist art, Romanticism and Postromanticism

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

aesthetic philosophy, aesthetics, art, art blog, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, Did Photography Replace Realism? I Don't Think So!, fine art, fineartebooks, fineartebooks.com, Philip Scott Johnson, Philip Scott Johnson's Classical Sculpture video, photography, postromantic movement, postromanticism, postromanticism.com, Realism, realist art, Romanticism and Postromanticism

 

Ansel-Adams-Portrait-Inner-Banner1

 

The aesthetic revolution that occurred during the twentieth-century is unprecedented in the history of Western art. Even the invention of one-point perspective and the soft shading that gives the illusion of depth (chiaroscuro) during the Renaissance didn’t change aesthetic standards as radically as the creation of non-representational, or what has also been called “conceptual” art. Since Marcel Duchamp we have come to believe that a latrine, if placed in a museum, is a work of art. Since Andy Warhol we have come to accept that brillo boxes and other ordinary household objects, if placed in a museum, are objets d’art. And since Jackson Pollock and the New York School of abstract expressionism we have come to realize that what may appear to be randomly spilled paint, globs and other kinds of smudges are not only artistic, but also considered by many to be the deepest expressions of human talent, thought and feeling.

Once art took a conceptual turn, it also became philosophical. As Arthur Danto argues in representational art what constituted “art” was more or less obvious. The only question that was always difficult to determine was: is it good art? By way of contrast, Danto explains, conceptual art compels viewers to think about the very nature of art. The postmodern answer to this question is not only philosophical–namely, that art is a concept because it cannot be identified visually, just by looking at it–but also sociological. Art is, as Danto himself declares, whatever the viewing public and especially the community that has the power to consecrate it–by exhibiting it in galleries and museums, buying it, writing books about it, critiquing and reviewing it, etc– says it is.

A priori, art can be anything. A brillo box, a toilet seat. But it isn’t everything for the simple reason that not everything is consecrated as art. What may seem, by older standards, to be art—such as contemporary Impressionist-style paintings–may not be considered art (but only cheap imitation) by the public or critics, while, conversely, what doesn’t seem to be art—a brillo box—can be perceived as the highest manifestation of artistic genius.

As noted, what makes twentieth- and twenty-first century art conceptual is the fact that what makes it be “art” can no longer be seen with the eye. We can’t see the aesthetic difference between the brillo boxes we discard and Warhol’s brillo boxes. Yet one is called trash and the other pop art. Clearly, it’s not the physical qualities of the object, but rather the assumptions of a community that determine what is (good) art. I cannot dispute this argument—made in different ways by Pierre Bourdieu and Arthur Danto–because, given everything I observe is being called art, I see it as the most compelling explanation of the term “art” as it’s being used today. Having conceded the artistic nature and value of nonrepresentational art, however, postromantic aesthetics argues that just because nonrepresentational art is valued doesn’t mean that contemporary representational art should be dismissed.

To explain the conceptual revolution that occurred in art at the end of the nineteenth-century and the beginning of the twentieth century, some art historians claim that photography eliminated the need for representational art, or the kind of art that tries to imitate “nature” by depicting faithfully what the eye can see. We can add in parentheses, as E. H. Gombrich observes in The Story of Art, that the notion of the representation of what the eye can see has changed throughout the history of art. Needless to say, it too is shaped by social assumptions. Nonetheless, the difference between a kind of art that aims at faithful visual imitation of the three-dimensional qualities of physical objects and one that doesn’t remains relatively easy to discern.

For instance, even without reading the descriptive title of the painting, it’s clear to tell by just looking at Renoir’s Girl Bathing (1892) that it features a nude girl bathing. Without its explanatory (or deceptive) title, however, it would be impossible to know what Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 1 (1911) is supposed to represent The last thing that might occur to those who look at it–if it were not for the title–is that it shows a nude.

The invention of photography had a lot to do with the move away from visual representation. To say that photography eliminated the need for representational art, however, is an overstatement. Undoubtedly, the invention of the camera encouraged artists to experiment with other means of representation in the same way that the invention of machines displaced hand-made crafts. The camera probably did for painting what the industrial revolution did for artisanship. But that doesn’t mean that artisanship–or hand-made beautiful objects–are no longer valuable. For what the human imagination, sensibility, eye and hand can create will always be somewhat different from what can be made with the aid of machines. The texture, sense of color and vision that are captured by painters are not identical to those that photography can produce, even though photography can bring us closer to visual reality and even though photography can be artistic.

Verisimilitude, or the true-to-life physical representation of objects, already existed in classical Greek, Hellenistic and Roman art, all of which rendered the beauty, movement and sinuosity of the human body especially palpable in their breath-taking sculptures. In classical Greek and Hellenistic art in particular, the human body conveyed (what was perceived as) the essence of beauty: the glorification of divine powers and aesthetic ideals were embodied in the human form. Philip Scott’s Johnson’s spectacular video vividly captures the beauty of classical sculptures:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ClaudiaMoscovici#p/a/f/0/D9LzdpVi_cw

While Greek paintings and especially sculptures showed knowledge of human anatomy, movement and foreshortening, it’s Renaissance artists who discovered the two other key components of verisimilitude in painting: one point-perspective and shading, which give the illusion of three-dimensionality to two-dimensional painted forms. Gombrich and other art historians credit the architect Filipo Brunelleschi with the invention of one-point perspective as it was enthusiastically adopted by Italian Renaissance painters. Perspective entailed the application of geometrical principles to convey in painting the relative size of objects in terms of their distance from one another and from the viewer. (The Story of Art, 228-9).

The most famous Renaissance artist, Leonardo da Vinci, added another dimension to making the objects represented in art seem almost real. His most famous painting Mona Lisa is said to deceive the viewers into believing that the woman’s eyes move, returning and even following their gaze with her eyes. Likewise, many have speculated about the meaning of Mona Lisa’s ambiguous smile, whose lips have a mobility that renders her at once impenetrable and expressive. Leonardo was able to achieve these complex visual and psychological effects through the technique called sfumato, or the smoky blurring the contours of the object depicted—especially the corners of Mona Lisa’s eyes and mouth—to leave their outline and expression more open to interpretation.

The study and representation of human anatomy and of nature, foreshortening, capturing human movement and expression, one-point perspective and the creation of soft shadows which give the illusion of three-dimensionality to painted forms — all these techniques which took centuries to develop–have the magical effect of making objects represented by art come to life before our eyes. This kind of naturalistic art is not necessarily “realistic” in the sense of capturing human life as it actually is. For instance, some of the paintings of the surrealists were realistic in their anatomically accurate and three-dimensional representation of the human body, but fantastic in their rendition of reality.

In its preference for visual resemblance (as opposed to realism or plausibility), postromanticism argues that the artistic techniques that give a sense of three-dimensionality and life-like quality to art are difficult skills that require both patience and technical talent and that are worth preserving and appreciating in art today. There’s no reason to discard the masterful qualities that made art artistic for five hundred years. Nor do such techniques have only a purely historical value. In an artistic world that prides itself upon pluralism, openness and variety, artists who desire to continue the legacy of realistic representation should be able to coexist with those that have rejected it. Postromanticism presents not a rival, but an alternative to modern and postmodern conceptual art. For in a world of such diverse tastes and sensibilities, there’s certainly room for both.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Realism in Contemporary Art

23 Thursday Sep 2010

Posted by Romantic and Postromantic Art in aesthetics, art blog, art criticism, Claudia Moscovici, contemporary art, fine art, fineartebooks, postromanticism, Realism, Realist art, Romanticism and Postromanticism

≈ Comments Off on Realism in Contemporary Art

Tags

art criticism, Claudia Moscovici, fine art, fineartebooks, Realism, Realism in Contemporary Art, realist art, Romanticism and Postromanticism

The aesthetic revolution that occurred during the twentieth century is unprecedented in the history of Western art. Even the invention of one-point perspective and the soft shading that gives the illusion of depth (chiaroscuro) during the Renaissance didn’t change aesthetic standards as radically as the creation of non-representational, or what has also been called “conceptual” art. Since Marcel Duchamp we have come to believe that a latrine, if placed in a museum, is a work of art. Since Andy Warhol we have come to accept that brillo boxes and other ordinary household objects, if placed in a museum, are objets d’art. And since Jackson Pollock and the New York School of abstract expressionism we have come to realize that what may appear to be randomly spilled paint, globs and other kinds of smudges are not only artistic, but also considered by many to be the deepest expressions of human talent, thought and feeling.

Once art took a conceptual turn, it also became philosophical. As Arthur Danto argues in representational art what constituted “art” was more or less obvious. The only question that was always difficult to determine was: is it good art? By way of contrast, Danto explains, conceptual art compels viewers to think about the very nature of art. The postmodern answer to this question is not only philosophical–namely, that art is a concept because it cannot be identified visually, just by looking at it–but also sociological. Art is, as Danto himself declares, whatever the viewing public and especially the community that has the power to consecrate it–by exhibiting it in galleries and museums, buying it, writing books about it, critiquing and reviewing it, etc– says it is.

A priori, art can be anything. A brillo box, a toilet seat. But it isn’t everything for the simple reason that not everything is consecrated as art. What may seem, by older standards, to be art—such as contemporary Impressionist-style paintings–may not be considered art (but only cheap imitation) by the public or critics, while, conversely, what doesn’t seem to be art—a brillo box—can be perceived as the highest manifestation of artistic genius.

As noted, what makes twentieth- and twenty-first century art conceptual is the fact that what makes it be “art” can no longer be seen with the eye. We can’t see the aesthetic difference between the brillo boxes we discard and Warhol’s brillo boxes. Yet one is called trash and the other pop art. Clearly, it’s not the physical qualities of the object, but rather the assumptions of a community that determine what is (good) art. I cannot dispute this argument—made in different ways by Pierre Bourdieu and Arthur Danto–because, given everything I observe is being called art, I see it as the most compelling explanation of the term “art” as it’s being used today. Having conceded the artistic nature and value of nonrepresentational art, however, postromantic aesthetics argues that just because nonrepresentational art is valued doesn’t mean that contemporary representational art should be dismissed.

To explain the conceptual revolution that occurred in art at the end of the nineteenth-century and the beginning of the twentieth century, some art historians claim that photography eliminated the need for representational art, or the kind of art that tries to imitate “nature” by depicting faithfully what the eye can see. We can add in parentheses, as E. H. Gombrich observes in The Story of Art, that the notion of the representation of what the eye can see has changed throughout the history of art. Needless to say, it too is shaped by social assumptions. Nonetheless, the difference between a kind of art that aims at faithful visual imitation of the three-dimensional qualities of physical objects and one that doesn’t remains relatively easy to discern.

For instance, even without reading the descriptive title of the painting, it’s clear to tell by just looking at Renoir’s Girl Bathing (1892) that it features a nude girl bathing. Without its explanatory (or deceptive) title, however, it would be impossible to know what Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 1 (1911) is supposed to represent The last thing that might occur to those who look at it–if it were not for the title–is that it shows a nude.

The invention of photography had a lot to do with the move away from visual representation. To say that photography eliminated the need for representational art, however, is an overstatement. Undoubtedly, the invention of the camera encouraged artists to experiment with other means of representation in the same way that the invention of machines displaced hand-made crafts. The camera probably did for painting what the industrial revolution did for artisanship. But that doesn’t mean that artisanship–or hand-made beautiful objects–are no longer valuable. For what the human imagination, sensibility, eye and hand can create will always be somewhat different from what can be made with the aid of machines. The texture, sense of color and vision that are captured by painters are not identical to those that photography can produce, even though photography can bring us closer to visual reality and even though photography can be artistic.

Verisimilitude, or the true-to-life physical representation of objects, already existed in classical Greek, Hellenistic and Roman art, all of which rendered the beauty, movement and sinuosity of the human body especially palpable in their breath-taking sculptures. In classical Greek and Hellenistic art in particular, the human body conveyed (what was perceived as) the essence of beauty: the glorification of divine powers and aesthetic ideals were embodied in the human form. While Greek paintings and especially sculptures showed knowledge of human anatomy, movement and foreshortening, it’s Renaissance artists who discovered the two other key components of verisimilitude in painting: one point-perspective and shading, which give the illusion of three-dimensionality to two-dimensional painted forms. Gombrich and other art historians credit the architect Filipo Brunelleschi with the invention of one-point perspective as it was enthusiastically adopted by Italian Renaissance painters. Perspective entailed the application of geometrical principles to convey in painting the relative size of objects in terms of their distance from one another and from the viewer. (The Story of Art, 228-9).

The most famous Renaissance artist, Leonardo da Vinci, added another dimension to making the objects represented in art seem almost real. His most famous painting Mona Lisa is said to deceive the viewers into believing that the woman’s eyes move, returning and even following their gaze with her eyes. Likewise, many have speculated about the meaning of Mona Lisa’s ambiguous smile, whose lips have a mobility that renders her at once impenetrable and expressive. Leonardo was able to achieve these complex visual and psychological effects through the technique called sfumato, or the smoky blurring the contours of the object depicted—especially the corners of Mona Lisa’s eyes and mouth—to leave their outline and expression more open to interpretation.

The study and representation of human anatomy and of nature, foreshortening, capturing human movement and expression, one-point perspective and the creation of soft shadows which give the illusion of three-dimensionality to painted forms — all these techniques which took centuries to develop–have the magical effect of making objects represented by art come to life before our eyes. This kind of naturalistic art is not necessarily “realistic” in the sense of capturing human life as it actually is. For instance, some of the paintings of the surrealists were realistic in their anatomically accurate and three-dimensional representation of the human body, but fantastic in their rendition of reality.

In its preference for visual resemblance (as opposed to realism or plausibility), postromanticism argues that the artistic techniques that give a sense of three-dimensionality and life-like quality to art are difficult skills that require both patience and technical talent and that are worth preserving and appreciating in art today. There’s no reason to discard the masterful qualities that made art artistic for five hundred years. Nor do such techniques have only a purely historical value. In an artistic world that prides itself upon pluralism, openness and variety, artists who desire to continue the legacy of realistic representation should be able to coexist with those that have rejected it. Postromanticism presents not a rival, but an alternative to modern and postmodern conceptual art. For in a world of such diverse tastes and sensibilities, there’s certainly room for both.

Claudia Moscovici, postromanticism.com

http://www.amazon.com/Romanticism-Postromanticism-Claudia-Moscovici/dp/0739116754

 


Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Print
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Recent Posts

  • Frédéric Jousset: From the Beaux-Arts tradition to the innovation of Art Explora
  • The Dynamic Abstraction of Nicolas Longo
  • Darida Paints Brancusi
  • Paola Minekov’s Undercurrents: The cover for Holocaust Memories
  • The Impressionist movement and the artwork of Chris van Dijk

Top Posts

  • Rodin's Muses: Camille Claudel and Rose Beuret
  • Diderot's Salons: Art Criticism of Greuze, Chardin, Boucher and Fragonard
  • A Toxic Love: Gilot describes her Life with Picasso
  • Why We Love Brancusi
  • Daniel Gerhartz: The Beauty of Representational Art
  • The Escheresque Photography of Sebastian Luczywo
  • Richard Burlet and the new Art Nouveau
  • On saving European art from the Nazis and The Monuments Men
  • The Impressionist movement and the artwork of Chris van Dijk
  • The Legacy of Impressionism: Individualism, Autonomy and Originality in Art

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 272 other subscribers

Blog Stats

  • 453,791 hits

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Archives

  • July 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2019
  • September 2018
  • May 2017
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • November 2015
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 272 other subscribers
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blogroll

  • Be Art Magazine
  • Catchy Magazine
  • Edson Campos
  • Edson Campos Art reviews
  • Fine Art E-book Website
  • Leonardo Pereznieto's art
  • Literatura de Azi
  • LiterNet
  • Litkicks
  • Postromantic art
  • Revista Hiperboreea
  • Support Forum

May 2023
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Jul    

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Fineartebooks's Blog
    • Join 272 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Fineartebooks's Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: