Journal entry for September 1, 2001

Today's summary: Is realism in art the "next big thing"?

This is my response to an art community post about whether realism in art is the "next big thing"...

"Next Big Thing"? *CRINGE* That statement makes me twitch whenever I hear it.

In my experience, most people's standard of art-judgement is based strictly on whether it "looks just like a real flower" or "looks like a real live person". There's a whooooole lot of people out there looking for the painterly equivalent of an enlarged photograph.

I sometimes wonder whether that's just what people are most comfortable judging... something along the lines of, "I have no idea what a valid artistic statement is or whether this qualifies as one, but, I can confidently state that that portrait looks JUST like Aunt Mary."

I'm not trying to cast any kind of aspersion on people who aren't well versed in what some artists are trying to express. Just commenting, it seems like realism is interpreted as a fairly safe area for people to make judgements, particularly among those whose primary focus when judging art is the demonstration of technical skill.

Or, to put it in a different context... it's a lot easier for some people to tell you whether or not a fiction book is well written ("the characters were very believable!") than to tell you whether a poetry book was well written ("um well, it rhymed most of the time... uh...").

Ever notice how easy it is for movie critics to fixate on continuity errors and plot holes, as if continuity and consistent plot are the only relevant criteria? I admit that I tend to fixate on that myself, but, now I'm getting off track...