Surrealism Vs. Realism Vs. Everything else

[gabriel]

Okay, I personally am fond of Surrealsm, as I find Realistic paintings boring. I can't seem to find the point in masterpieces like the mona lisa, or such... I dont understand why they should rank as famous, or the best. Sure I know the Theory of why they're good, but honestly... I think nowdays there are much better.

Why do they get the title of THE BEST? I personally find Rene Magritte's (sp?) painting of the castle floating on the rock above the sea to be much more wonder worthy. Why do I care why the Mona Lisa is smiling, or how he painted her face (people: she doesn't have EYEBROWS). But when veiwing this painting of Rene Magritte's, I can think of thousands of questions: one, for example, "WHAT were you thinking?" is most obvious.

These paintings make you think of the life of the artist, and the time and thoughts of the painting being painted (or at least I believe so) because it isn't whats RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. If you know what's in front of you, then you can always see that time period. Even the boring poses of the people and things...

I dont mean to offend any Realism fans, but... Is anyone getting my point?
(sorry everyone, it's just too much time in Art class, having to write on a subject of art I hate gets to me, and makes me wish to rant).

What do YOU all think?

[SnakeYukin]

I think it's like all other forms of creativity: people are subjective. They bring in their own views and beliefs on a said work. However, society as a whole may have a common belief which gears itself towards liking one of the other.

I'll use the Mona Lisa as an example. It is a Realistic painting and I assume many people (non artsy type) like Realistic paintings over ones that are more weird and need a better understanding. Also, maybe the amount of details involved in a work is amazing for the work back in that time.

Just as a thesis, just because current art may look better, it may not be as a breakthrough as those older art, which were more of a breakthrough. So if we look at the art in the standards of that time and compare it's leap, then maybe it is the best in that standard. Of course, people may disagree with this assumption and I'm not sure myself. I mean, I'm a writer, not an artist, but that's my two cents.

Oh, but I like more abstract and obscure stuff. Also, I like the Scream, but I'm not sure why.

[gabriel]

I see your point, that the work has an amazing amount of talent and and eyes geared toward details to do. I know that I myself can't accomplish what they did, even if I worked years more than them to even attempt it.

But still, I wonder... What made them choose people, and those particular places as their subject? That's what gets me about Realism; was it the people themselves that chose to be portrayed in their portraits, say for example, for their family, or themselves, or was it the intention of the artist for their work to be perceived as a masterpiece?

There were such mundane things painted as well; it just leads me to wonder a little that's all. I'm not sure if it's just me, or if anyone else has this problem when viewing this style, but I have trouble seeing anything of importance in the pieces outside of (what you said) the 'breakthrough' and 'leap' of the skills, or idea of how to portray it. Besides the actual style changing, Realism to me, just seems worthless if those skills themselves are wasted on still lives and portraits (I'm currently disregarding the sceneries that were done under this style of art, because I find that those tend to be breathtaking, and noteworthy).

I'm not really trying to start a debate, sorry if it seems as if I am, but I was just wondering...

At least with surrealism, or other styles that are of the same ilk, you get to see into the mind of the artist and how he/she views their time, or their life. It seems that what they draw has a particular MEANING to them, that I cant find in the Realistic style, other than the need to show off their own work, or to have something to document the people and the time... Even the Baroque style had meaning (if you can call showing pride and heroism meaning: I can, but some may not).

I do think that I'm repeating myself, sorry, it's just... I'm not sure...

[SnakeYukin]

Well, it's hard to know what their reasons were, kinda like it's hard to determine what exactly a dead person meant in a poem if it's not known. The easiest reason I can think of is they just saw someone or something and that just struck inspiration in them to draw that. Say the Mona Lisa: maybe he saw her somewhere and saw her beautiful smile (I'm just going to go with what people think) and he had to draw her and that smile. So he asked her, she agreed, he drew, and the rest is up for discussion on history.
However, I think that both realism and surrealism are in different planes of art and thinking.

Realism is when you see something and you're transcribing it onto a canvas. It's, for the most part, the same, so we look at how realistic it looks.

Surrealism, as you said, is more deeper and we get to see what they see, and it has a meaning. It is meant to make people think, not just look and gasp in aw.

I would like to compare it to reading. There are two types of books: entertainment and those that mean something. Entertainment is like realism, it doesn't have a deep meaning, it's just meant to be enjoyed and understood. The book that has a meaning is like surrealism, as both have something to say: to make people think.

They're in different schools and I believe that people are geared towards one or the other (as I stated earlier). And the assumptions on it's value as a work is based upon a objective view on the work. A realism work may be a masterpiece because it is the most realistic looking work; however it won't have a deep meaning. While a surrealism work may be the be a masterpiece because it has the most meaningful message; however, it won't look really realistic.

However, if you want some meaning for realistic art, then maybe this will slightly due. Realistic art's meaning might be as simple as this: to preserve a moment in time. Other forms may seek a deeper meaning behind it, but realistic art is like a photo: it takes us back. We get to see what someone or some place looked like back then; however, now, those people and places may be gone or altered. I can never go see Mona, in flesh and blood, and tell her she has a beautiful smile. It's a gateway for something that isn't there now.

Hopefully that all made sense.

[gabriel]

I see. Thank you for the insight, that did help.

I was just having a tad bit dificuty seeing the point, but I can see what your saying. At least, much better than I could when my actual teacher spouted all her oppinionated onesided rants about the beauty of this and that. Thank you.

[SnakeYukin]

I can't believe I helped when I know nearly nothing about art. That's the problem with some people, they only see things from one thing never others. It just derives from the fact we are subjective to items instead of being subject. Oh well, I'm glad I helped give some perspective/insight.

[gabriel]

You dont have to know everything about somthing to give your opinion on a subject. You knew enough about art to have that viewpoint on it, and by telling me, have helped me to understand a problem that I had been having. Very helpful :3