What do you think about when someone mentions
the term "realism"? Artworks and images that look more "real"? Yes in a way that's correct.
But the word "real" also has to be quantified. Real in what sense? Realistic shapes and forms,
realistic colour, realistic lighting, realistic subject matter, or realistic experiences? "Realism" generally refers to realistic portrayals
of subject matter and content - art works that closely resemble everyday life. When
it comes to describing the physical characteristics of an artwork, you want to use the word "naturalism"
- this refers thing like shapes, colours, forms, lighting, shadows and such being more realistic and more closely representing the natural world. Think of realism being more concerned with
the narrative, and naturalism being more concerned with the visual appearance. Realism is generally regarded as the opposite
of "idealism." Idealism illustrates subject matter in pursuit of higher principles and
goals, while realism prefers to depict everyday situations and be more truthful to social
realities. For instance - this classical painting by Botticelli depicts ideally bodies in a
beautiful fantasy landscape. While this painting by Jean Francois Millet depicts a working
class woman raking hay. Naturalism, in essence, is the opposite of
abstract and stylized. For instance, in this abstract and stylized painting by Henri Matisse,
we can pretty much tell that it is a depiction of an interior scene with furniture, objects,
a human figure and a window that looks out to an exterior landscape. However, these subjects
are not depicted naturally. There are no natural lights and shadows, there's no realistic geometry
or perspectives being depicted, the scales of objects are completely off and a lot of
subject matters are being represented by simple geometric shapes and flat colours. In comparison,
this painting by Peter Paul Rubens of Venus and Adonis is highly naturalistic. Figures
are painted with correct and proportional anatomy and in addition - natural colours
and shadows are used. Although this work by Rubens is considered
a work of naturalism, it is not considered a work of realism. For one, the content of
this painting is a story of classical mythology involving ideal Gods and Goddesses. Two, you're
not very likely to come across a scene like this, just walking through the country side.
At least, not in my experiences. I don't imagine there are too many curvy, naked ladies just
hanging around the countryside, with their babies that have wings growing on its backs.
It's just not representing reality in a usual sense. Anyway, you're more likely to be walking
across the countyside seeing a hardworking woman raking hay - in the 1800s anyway. Realism as an art movement originated in Europe
in around the mid to late 1800s. In a general sense, it was a response to the idealistic
constraints of neoclassicism as well as the theatrical and dramatic nature of romanticism
which were styles that were dominant in European tastes in the preceding century. In addition,
social changes such as French revolution, as well as the industrial revolution caused
many social thinkers, including artists to focus on realities - often harsh realities
that included the lives of working class citizens and rural peasant farmers. Can a work be considered realism and naturalism
at the same time? Of course. For example - Gustav Courbet's paintings are very representative
of realism - such as this painting showing working class stone breakers. At the same
time, his compositions and figures are also painted in very naturalistic ways. Your homework is to find a work of art that
represents "realism" but not "naturalism", as well as a work that represents "naturalism"
but it's not "realism." It doesn't have to be painting. It can be
photography, it can drawings, prints, watercolours, or even can be sculptural. Leave it in the
comments below, or tweet at me, or send me a message. Thanks very much for watching.
I'm really looking forward to seeing what you guys are going to come up with. And as
always, feel free to ask me a question in the comments below and if you don't already
subscribe - I highly encourage you to hit the button or click on the link the in bottom,
on the side. I don't even know where.
I'm becoming a fan of your art vlogs, please keep sharing them. One simple remark: In Venus and Adonis it's not her baby, but a putto, which in Peter Paul Rubens composition tells the viewer of the pacific and passionate atmosphere between the two main figures.
I think this was nicely done. A lot of people who are new to art history tend to have a difficult time differentiating Naturalistic and Realistic artworks. It's a vital concept to understand, and I'm glad to see you help others with this.
Though, you mentioned Botticelli's Birth of Venus is from the Neo-Classicial era. I don't think that's correct. Botticelli is a Classicist, as his work is from the 15th century. Classicism, in part, revolves around the revival of antiquity within the ancient Greeks and Romans. Neo-Classicism is from the 18th century-- closely tied with the Age of Enlightenment. Neo-Classicism is an appropriated revival of Classicism (which that in itself is a revival as well). I'm sure you misspoke, but I'm pointing it out because Classicism is more of an idealized Naturalism, while Neo-Classicism is more hyper-hyper Naturalism.
This is great!! I'm a teacher and will definitely show this to my students. Well put together, clear, concise, and I like the challenge at the end.
To ditto other folks, this is well explained.
It's not the question asked, but I wanted to note a few things about presentation, because I think there are a few things that support or detract from the clarity:
The audio is great, very clear, without echo. You articulate extremely well, but maybe the delivery was a little more monotone at the beginning, (but I imagine that'll get ironed out as you continue to make these.)
This might just be me, but I found the background distracting. I imagine you're working with what you have, but something less busy might help viewers focus a bit better. Since you're making an ongoing series, you might want to consider buying some foam board from an art store and making yourself a reusable background.
Watch your hands, yo. I do the same thing when I present, and I have to keep reminding myself to only make motions to emphasize a few (or at least less) points.
Anyway, apologies for the unsolicited advice, this is great! :-)