Get real

Life drawing, red and white chalk, 2016

I have to confess that I don't get photo realism or hyperealism.  The whole point of creation is to make something new that didn't exist before. But in photo realism and hyperealism, the image already exists as a photograph.  Why recreate it as a painting or drawing?  What I especially don't understand is the laborious, exact copying of a photo of a celebrity that the copyist doesn't have permission to use.  Not only is it asking for trouble, but it's dumb.  Celebrities are the ones with the money and the lawyers.  Who do you think would win a copyright battle - celebrity or clueless artist?  And that goes for the photographer of a celebrity, too, who is undoubtedly a pro and not doing this for fun.  Copyright infringement is a big deal.

The only time I've copied photos was in high school, fifty years ago.  At the time, I was trying to learn how to draw any way that I could think of, so I tried to draw by copying photos.  It didn't work.  What I wound up with was neither a good drawing or a good photo.  On the other hand, I don't have a problem with copying the work of a master to study and learn.  I've even done it.  For study purposes, I've copied the drawings and paintings of Rembrandt, Durer, Leonardo and Michelangelo.  Aside from that, I usually work from life, unless my subject is either not the right age or life form to sit still, or is no longer on the planet.  I just don't see the point of copying from photographs.  Much better to learn how to actually draw or paint than to copy photos.

My final problem with photrealism/hyperealism is the increasing amount of realist work with soupy subjects from mythology, history and fantasy.  There's a fine line here.  We already did the 19th c. once - let's not do it again, please!  How real do we have to get?

Deborah Dendler website
Deborah Dendler Facebook page