Talk:Photorealism

Comment from 2007
I added two NEW sources that both mention Photorealism development from the Pop Art Movement and as a justifiable "revolt" away from the current state of art in the 1960s which was forms of Abstract art. Zachiroth 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Question
Zachiroth -- Can you tell me the words with which we are told in "Meisel, Louis K. "Photorealism", Abradale/Abrams, 1989" that "A photorealist must have an extreme knowledge of color...?" I'm referring to this line: "A photorealist must have an extreme knowledge of color and ability to create photorealistic paintings.[3]" Bus stop 04:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Bus Stop -- In both Louis K. Meisel's Manifesto for Photorealism and all three of his books on photorealism he continiously mentions the technical abilities and artistic knowledge a photorealist must have to successfully imitate a photographic image. (Which really actually should go without saying as no one can just sit down and imitate a photograph with paint.) I don't have the books with me but I will get back to you with quotes of where he actually mentions the technical ability of the artists. I will also include direct references to instances where Linda Chase and Kim Mendenhall mention the ability needed to be a photorealist. Hope this solves the disagreement for the time being.

Zachiroth -- I contest the assertion that "A photorealist must have an extreme knowledge of color." It implies that a knowledge of color is of greater importance to a photo-realist than to an artist working in some other realm. This is an incorrect impression to give the reader. Color is of importance to artists working in other realms too. And a photo-realist is still an artist. It is art that we are talking about. This isn't a scientific discourse on color. Color is just one of many factors that come into play in making a photo-realist painting. I think you are promoting photo-realism as somehow superior to other visual art, and you are attributing to photo-realist artists abilities that set them apart from other artists. The implication is clearly that the technical requirements of the photo-realist needs to be superior than that of other artists. It is my contention that this is not so. Photo-realism is a style of art. We are not talking about an Olympic contest. We have scientific instruments that can probably do a better job at matching color. You say it "should go without saying..." I'm sorry, but I disagree. Please tell me the language with which Meisel and/or others assert this. Bus stop 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop -- I will remove it until I have a direct quote from the manifesto and photorealism books. However to be a successful artist one does need an informative background in color and many other things (in any sub-field of art). Especially in realistic, photographic imitation. Where as in other forms of art color might be used sparsely or extremely, Photorealism is imitating what the eye sees and therefore involves a complexity in the achieving and imitation of an actual photograph that other forms of art might not. The statement in the article is not claiming that photorealists should have a keener sense of color, it is simply saying that to successfully imitate a photographic image realistically the artist should have a great knowledge of color as should any artist.

I agree completely that to be a great photorealist painter you must be an absolute master of color. Unfortunately some of those that have been listed in the Wikipedia entry on this subject paint images that are too high key. Markalanrussell (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Mark Alan Russell

I do see what you are saying about it giving a false impression and I see it now that I re-read it. I will remove it for the time being. Thanks. Zachiroth 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

John Stuart Ingle
John Stuart Ingle has been added to this list several times but it should be mentioned that he is a Realist and not a Photo-realist. Please do not add him to the list of photorealists. Zachiroth 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Askart.com lists photorealism as a style category for this artist. Perhaps you are mistaken. Do you have a source for your assertion? I have given you mine. MdArtLover —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is further evidence in favor of Ingle's inclusion. This is an article which refers to a 1996 painting by Ingle. The article specificially states that the painting is based on a composite computer photo. "[painting title:] Betty Crocker, 1996. The portrait by John Stuart Ingle is inspired by a morphed computerized composite portrait of 75 American women who each embody the characteristics of Betty Crocker." article in the McGill Reporter, March 21, 2002 MdArtLover 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His own Wikipedia article lists him as a "magic realist" and "contemporary realist" painter. His book, "The Eye and the Heart" describes him as a Contemporary Realist.  His methods are also not like that of Photorealists, mainly his not working from photographs.  According to the rules of the Photorealism movement, the artist must work from photographs.  Also, a mention of him in the New York Times mentions him as a magic realist:  "John Stuart Ingle proves that Magic Realism lives in his virtuoso still life incorporating silver, peaches and a plant in a blue ceramic pot, all on a wood table;" http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/19/nyregion/art-the-skill-of-the-watercolorist.html (Paragraph 11) Zachiroth (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I can say that John Stuart Ingle is a photorealist - because his work looks indistinguishable from a photograph. It's utter nonsense to suggest that he's a 'Magic Realist' Markalanrussell (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Markalanrussell
 * Even though his photographs perhaps look like a photograph does not make him a photorealist; a photorealist artist is determined by their work from actual photographs. Zachiroth (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ingle's painting is hyper realistic but the subject matter has "beauty" that is associated with classical art. One thing that seems to define photo-realism is the subject matter, which is everyday modern objects such as steel diners, parking meters, etc. Thus its association with pop art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B114:9A14:5CE:7223:7C98:5BA2 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

John Mandel
I can not find sources saying John Mandel is a photorealist. His askart.com page, Askart, says he is a figurative expression-post realism painter. Which means he is not a photorealist. Until valid sources are found he will be removed from the list. Zachiroth (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hornak
Ian Hornak was removed from the list of artists in "At the Millennium" for the reason that he is more relevant nearer the First Generation than the current generation of Photorealists (However he is not listed in the Manifesto of Original Photorealists and he cannot be validly placed in that list either). His artwork is also a bit more surrealist than photorealist. This also conflicts with the main Photorealists currently. Zachiroth (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

-- --

Ian Hornak produced many paintings in the strict photorealist tradition from 1971-1985. Although, he also produced a very large body of works that may appear more surreal then that of traditional Photo-Realist subject matter, all of the artworks that Hornak created from 1971-1985 were taken from his own photography which was then projected on canvas and painted, technically, in the manner of the Photo-Realists. Despite the fact that his subject matter with his "conceptual multiple exposure series" differed greatly from the subject matter of the traditional Photo-Realists, he still captured his own double or multiple exposure photographs [the same as he captured his single exposure photographs] and used their exact projection on canvas for his paintings and drawings. These photographs are now in the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian. There is nothing stating in the guidelines of Photo-Realism that an artist cannot use a multiple exposure photograph that he/she captured and apply it to the four guidelines below. Hornak also spent five years prior to 1972 creating paintings and drawings of human figures and at times landscapes that are mostly projected from photographs he had taken which ultimately lead to the development of his Photo-realist technique and were exhibited at exhibited at in group exhibitions at Eleanor Ward’s Stable Gallery in New York from 1968-69 and also the Gertrude Kasle Gallery in Detroit from 1965-1974. Guideline number 5 states only that five years must have been devoted to the DEVELOPMENT & EXHIBITION of Photo-Realist work; the key word is development not strict Photo-Realist technique or conception. View www.ianhornak.com to see the evolution and also a selection of the strict photorealist works that Hornak created. Also, askart.com and artcyclopedia.com list Ian Hornak as a Photo-Realist.

Lastly, there is also no stipulation stating that an artist could not explore surrealism in a separate series from his or her Photo-Realist work, so long as the bulk of the career as implied by and in the timeframe of the guidelines is devoted to Photo-Realism. Once again, visit www.ianhornak.com to view both the photorealist works and the evolution of the artist. Also view the official resume of the artist on that estate website.

Thus Ian Hornak used each of the five guidelines of Louis K. Meisel definintion of photorealism: 1. The Photo-Realist uses the camera and photograph to gather information. 2. The Photo-Realist uses a mechanical or semimechanical means to transfer the information to the canvas. 3. The Photo-Realist must have the technical ability to make the finished work appear photographic. 4. The artist must have exhibited work as a Photo-Realist by 1972 to be considered one of the central Photo-Realists. 5. The artist must have devoted at least five years to the development and exhibition of Photo-Realist work.

(Slaenterprises (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Please be Aware that I never said he wasn't a Photorealist. He just has not had a major influence in it after the Millennium and thus was removed from the "At The Millennium" section.  Zachiroth (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ian Hornak was removed from the list of "original photorealists" as he is not listed as one of the founding members of Photorealism in Louis K. Meisel's 1980 history and manifesto of the art movement. He has been re-added to "Photorealists," I'm not sure why some one removed him from that list.  Zachiroth (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Photorealism or Photo Realism?
This obituary and Howard Kanovitz's website both refer to "Photo Realism", not "Photorealism". Comments? Bongo matic  15:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Photorealism or Photo-realism is the correct way to write the term according to all three "Photorealism" books by Louis K. Meisel. Zachiroth (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alyssa Monks
Though her style is photorealistic she has yet to devote 5 years towards photorealism which is one of the qualifications. Zachiroth (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vija Celmins
What about Vija Celmins, I think she's a great photorealis too. Can be added to the list of original Photorealist. Denistonello (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The original photorealists are considered to be those listed in Meisel's first Photorealism book. She is not listed in that definitive work/manifesto for the movement of photorealism.  She could be listed in "photorealists" but not "original photorealists."  Zachiroth (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanations, I have a question, what do you think about her Photorealism? Denistonello (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem as precise as most Photorealists but I like her subject matter of ripples in the water. Richard Estes perhaps (Seeing as she has been doing this subject since the late 60s) was influenced by her work as he went through a period of painting ripples in the water resulting from boats. Zachiroth (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I read something about it. I will publish some reference, if I find the book in my library. She publish also a good book with an interview to Chuck Close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denistonello (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian and European Photorealist
I noticed that the list of photorealist lack of name's of European artists. I would like to start with three good Italian Photorealis: Luciano Ventrone, Chiara Albertoni and Vania Comoretti. I would like to know your opinion. Denistonello (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any addition of European Photorealists is very welcome, though a new section just for them is not needed. Simply add them to the list of Photorealists.  I can't believe Chiara Albertoni isn't already on the list.  Zachiroth (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Luciano Ventrone meets the qualifications for a photorealist (He's associated with Bernaducci & Meisel), Vania Comoretti does not seem to work from photographs. If she does, however, it would not seem as if she is of not that much importance in the Photorealism movement.  One qualification is an artist's importance to the the movement - Thus, newer (in terms of years working in the movement) artists can be left out. Zachiroth (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your direction, I will search name's with good qualification and importance for the movement. If it's possible, where I can send you private message? Denistonello (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

List of names
Most of these need to be removed - they are unreferenced redlinks. They are de facto non-notable and there is no means to verify their existence, much less their notability. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all the names that are listed in Meisel's Photorealism books and Linda Chases Photorealism essays/books as well as other art history books. They are very noteworthy, they just don't happen to have wikipedia articles. Zachiroth (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's where write the article first comes into play. Also, the entire section is unreferenced, so that needs to be corrected as well. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with 98.248.33.198, although some of those red-links might be notable artists either create new articles (or stubs), or forget about them for awhile...Modernist (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on new articles for each of the main photorealists. Zachiroth (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of work, but worthwhile, thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating articles that depend on a single source and/or their own webpage fails notability guidelines. Creating a whole bunch of non-notable stubs is not the way to go. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating stubs of notable artists that conform to WP:V and WP:N is a perfectly good way to expand this subject. Perhaps you are particularly uninformed about these artists, but several of the artists Zachiroth is creating stubs about are very well known, although he is well advised to reference them correctly...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- If they conform, yes. But looking at things like Ron Kleemann and John Kacere shows that they don't, specifically the notability at WP:ARTIST. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth Kacere was a very notable painter during the 1960s similar to Mel Ramos. He is known primarily for painting women's behinds in sexy underwear;, proto-pop art; probably with some research his notability can easily be established as his biography indicates . However I know very little about Kleeman and I am uncertain as to his notability...Modernist (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ron Kleemann is one of the very first Photorealists. He is extremely notable and is credited as one of the more surreal photorealists involving a great deal of sexual metaphor in his artwork.  I wrote the first couple of articles the other day hastily but I will slowly be fixing them and adding more sources, etc. etc. Zachiroth (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cayce Zavaglia does something old in a new way. She doen't change the philosphy much, but she does it with embroidery. Heyzeuss (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Meisel editing article to showcase his galleries.
Meisel is well within his means to edit anything about the original 60s/70s movement with his original show - but there were other artists that Meisel did not represent creating Photorealistic art. This reaches to contemporary times as well. User:Modernist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersonicart (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could the disputants please clarify something for me? Is the dispute essentially about whether "posmodernism" as a style is a time-constrained movement, like Pop Art, say, or the Hudson River School, as opposed to being an ongoing style choice for artists? BMK (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over Meisel editing the article to include only artists he represents in his galleries. There are photorealist artists that Meisel doesn't sell that are mentioned in other textbooks, books and magazines on the subject. Supersonicart (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that is your point, but it doesn't appear to be Modernist's. I'd like to hear from both of you. In addition, are the non-Neisel artists you mention from the 60s or are they more contemporary? BMK (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Point being that Photorealism was an art movement of a particular time. I want a clear distinction made in the article between the origins dating back into the 40s and 50s; then into the 60s-70s movement; as contrasted against the Hyperrealism movement today. The newer artists added should in essence be added to a completely different list. By the way I have no negatives about them being included - just rather how they are included...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds very reasonable to me. Supersonicart, do you have objections to that? BMK (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I love the new edit.  Thanks! Supersonicart (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes labeled as Super-Realism ?
TheFreeDictionary links Superrealism with Surrealism and not with photorealism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.204.19.133 (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, read the entire entry, it's not nearly as clear-cut as that. BMK (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Photorealism and copyright
Under American copyright law an exact photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional image is not capable of being copyrighted because it has no element of originality or creativity. Do photorealism works, in that they attempt to create an exact reproduction of a photo, have any originality or creativity or are they entirely a product of technique/craft, not creativity? This is not intended to pose a copyright question, but a question about the value or quality of the works as art works. I ask this because there seems to be an accepted definition of photorealism here as being reproduction, whereas I have to wonder whether or not there is also a creative, not merely skillful, element which has not been adequately represented in the article. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that if the photo, and painting from it, were created by the same person, one copyright would cover both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B114:9A14:5CE:7223:7C98:5BA2 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Louis Meisel Edits
It should be noted (again) that Louis Meisel is not the definitive voice on the Photorealism movement, his and his associates edits should be constantly scrutinized over. Supersonicart (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)