To change it:
- Get away from "realism" -- modern life has the camera, TV, cinema to do that. Photorealists are already doing it as good as needed.
- The artist should find some world on his own that he/she believes in.
- No cameras or devices of any kind should be excepted in the creating of fine art work.
- A human being is not a machine and should have distortions - inaccuracies in the interpretation of the living form in the painting. Look at the great art of the past and follow their way of doing things (here is my disagreement with "perfecting" the form instead of giving more life to it).
Rubik,
Regarding 4, I agree in one sense, that the artist should look to make a better work of art with his subject, rather than simply copy what he sees, and that usually includes adjusting proportions, contours and features to make it look more elegant, graceful, more appealing, more aesthetically pleasing -- in a word, more artistic, than the actual literal reality of it, or, as you put it, "to bring more life to it." If distortions and other inaccuracies are awkward and unartistic, as is often the result when the artist simply does not know any better, then it is not done intentionally with artistic purpose in mind, and the art in question will be less artistic rather than more so. It can be accomplished without compromising the convincing aspect of the imagery, and that is what I try to do in my own work. This is something that photorealists do NOT do, and that is one reason why I feel photorealism is not the best way to go.
Distortions per se are not an asset in art. Only the good ones are. I advocate looking at the great art of the past and incorporating its best aspects into what we do, while looking for better ways of doing whatever we can see ways of improving on. Just doing everything the way it was done hundreds of years ago will not bring any changes to the art world, and that is what we were talking about.
Virgil
