Return to 'realism' in painting

**Adrian II** · 03-18-2007, 23:58

Today I went to the 'Kunsthal' museum in Rotterdam to see a exposition of over a hundred new (after 2000) paintings by realist painters. Some familiar names were represented: Lucian Freud, Eric Fischl, Marlene Dumas. Some totally unknown. Most were very interesting.

The name of the exposition was 'Long live painting'. It was meant as yet another celebration of the 'return to painting' or 'return to realism', an apparent trend in modern art. Charles Saatchi made it 'official', a gew years back, when he organised the first exposition centred uniquely on this theme.

Painting has often been declared dead. Nonetheless, there appears to be a worldwide return to painting; it seems that more artists are painting than in previous decades. Better still, most try their hand at the recently most vifilied genre of all, the human portrait.

The catalogue states that this renewed interest has come about in reaction to the onslaught of manipulated (digital) imagery in today's culture. From the works shown in Rotterdam, I came away with the impression that modern artists have huge difficulties when trying to dissociate themselves from this manipulated 'reality' and find their way (back) to their own observations, impressions and images and put them down on canvas.

Most of all, I was impressed by Eric Fischl's Bathroom Scene #2. Beautiful, haunting stuff. If you Google around for Fischl and the Krefeld project you will find more information on what is transpiring in today's realism.

So, what do you guys think of this development? Discuss. Fall out. Mount a barricade or two, this is art after all.

Eric Fischl, Bathroom Scene #2, 2003

**Papewaio** · 03-19-2007, 00:44

I don't think realism died, it was hit by the invention of the camera. I think it has been a matter of those who prefer portraits and landscapes grabbing a camera over a brush.

Now with the ability to manipulate images with computers it is other works of the brush that are feeling the impact.

**ShadeHonestus** · 03-19-2007, 01:03

Very interested in the return to realism. If I had to go to one more showing which featured either a need for 3-D glasses or 50 grams of cocaine to understand how the piece could represent anything...well, I'd probably quit going. I was also very annoyed by the photo eye's transcendence to being canonized as art proper and overshadowing the paintbrush.

I remember my first modern art showing that I saw, I believe I was 6 at the time and it was in Pittsburg. It literally made me physically ill. When we got to the hotel that night, on the wall, a modern art piece. It would have been a long night if service hadn't brought the extra sheet to hang.

**Hosakawa Tito** · 03-19-2007, 01:46

Painting me taking a dump would definitely be haunting art (how long must I hold this *grunt* pose), but I can at least understand it better than that abstract Rorschach mess some refer to as "modern art". Thanks for the google tip.

**Adrian II** · 03-19-2007, 02:10

@ Papewaio. But how do you explain the revival of the portrait? Camera's didn't get worse in the last five years, they only got better. Besides, visual artists have accommodated quite well to their arrival. Particularly the lazy ones...

@ ShadeHonestus. I hear you, brother. You get to the point where one more showcase filled with ping pong balls or oliphant droppings can provoke genuine, physical anger in a man. It's an insult to your intelligence.

As for your infantile trauma in Pittsburgh - I think a reproduction of Munch's The Cry or some really bloody Rubens on the wall wouldn't be suitable for a six year old either. That would be altogether too.. figurative.

@ Hosakawa Tito. Quite. Though by the way you tell it, your taking a dump would probably result in a Rorschach mess as well.

**ShadeHonestus** · 03-19-2007, 02:15

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That would be altogether too.. figurative.

At least the poo flinging monkey's at the Zoo the next day were literal and helped me recover.

**Hosakawa Tito** · 03-19-2007, 02:31

I like this one. I must see if I can get a print.

**Adrian II** · 03-19-2007, 02:32

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

At least the poo flinging monkey's at the Zoo the next day were literal and helped me recover.

And I reckon you weren't in two minds as to who were the better faeces-artists either.

But how about discerning quality in a painting? This used to be a real theoretical problem for me. After years of study, lonely hours of oxygen-deprived contemplation on mountaintops and consultation with the wisest and sharpest minds of mankind, I have come to the conclusion that I'm ass when it comes to painting. I can't really, profoundly explain to someone else why I find a painting good or bad. I really have only one criterion: do I keep looking at a painting or not?

Adrian keeps looking (and coming back) = painting good
Adrian doesn't bother looking twice = painting bad

Works for me.