[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/ic/ - Artwork/Critique


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


What is the key to achieving naturalistic realism in painting? Is it the values, the colours, the drawing, the forms, etc...? Some artists seem to render subjects very accurately but still not achieve this effect?
>>
>>6382214
>>
>>6382214
>>
>>6382214
For example, although American Gothic by Grant Wood is a very detailed painting, it doesn't have the realistic feeling that you find in artists like Lepage. But I'm struggling to figure out what the major differences are.
>>
Most of Bouguereau's paintings are similarly very detailed and realistically coloured, but they also fail to achieve that real world light effect.
>>
What I've noticed about art that looks "real" is that it actually usually isn't hyper detailed. Probably deliberately.
Human brains are really good at filling in gaps in detail that hint at things they know to be true. Good artists take advantage of this in almost kind of art style, but it's pretty noticeable in realism stuff. Doubly so in faces. Great artists know exactly what features to emphasize and what features to play down.
>>
>>6382214
>Is it the values, the colours, the drawing, the forms, etc...?
Yes.
>Some artists seem to render subjects very accurately but still not achieve this effect?
Post an example.
>>
>>6382263
As for this one:
>>6382223
The forms are rendered accurately, but the light (and their appearance) isn't.
Edges are too sharp, skin lacks sub-surface scattering, there's a discrepancy between the muted color of the light (and the temperature shift between light and shadow) and the sharpness of the shadows, no Fresnel effect anywhere, shading on the clothes makes them look too flat.
>>
>>6382249
Yes one noticeable thing is that the backgrounds are impressionistic/semi-impressionistic and the faces are not all hard edges, quite the opposite.

>>6382270
Thanks for the feedback. Given that great artists like Wood, Bouguereau, etc.. did not achieve that level of naturalism is there hope for the rest of us? Pic is of a painting by Bastien Laplage's tutor, Alexandre Cabanel, who also painted in a more academic, less naturalistic style than Laplage, I think, making me wonder where Laplage got his style from.

Is this natural realism something you can learn to do or is it down to talent/vision?
>>
File: JoanOfArcLarge.jpg (3.38 MB, 3612x3250)
3.38 MB
3.38 MB JPG
Laplage, Joan of Arc.
>>
Very interesting topic. I'm not the best versed in 19th century painting, but there's a ubiquotous discussion to take place. There is a noticeable change (as with every movement) where a shift in aesthetics challenges how we see certain artistic terms.

In pop culture, it seems there is a very "samey" approach to the Renaissance - pre-Impressionist period. The mimetic quality that's been presented as the key to everything since the 14/15th century improvements is always at the forefront. But the question becomes, what is mimetic?
What "style" is the closest in what Renaissance originally tried to do? The Renaissance itself? Baroque? Neoclassicism? Realism? Academic painting?

There's so many examples of 19th century art starting to tip the linear-painterly scale (see: Heinrich Wolfflin) way over to the field of the latter. Goya seems the most obvious example of an Old Master heading to a caricatural aesthetic to painting.
Yet there's so many indescribable intricacies of how these things present. Academicism is often presented as the purest and most classic way to show the world, yet these seem less convincing than a lot of the more exaggerated, painterly pieces; the ones that seem like they are much reduced in details. It seems to me that Cabanel is near the linear end of things, Bougereau is in the middle and Lepage is far on the painterly side of things.
>>
>>6382214
realism as a movement has more to do with the subject than the look and technicalities
>>
File: file.png (749 KB, 567x768)
749 KB
749 KB PNG
>>6382545
terrible values on this lass.
>>
>>6382565
It is weird, cause Renaissance always gets the most praise in mimesis. Maybe Michelangelo was missing the knowledge on light and color that 19th century offered (cameras and plein air come to mind).
It is funny, those muddy potatoes look more life-like than in Golden Age Dutch still-lifes. And the use of color almost looks like those phone cameras with obnoxious HDR.
>>
>>6382733
you can turn off the activate windows cancer just fyi
>>
File: bastien_lapage_1.png (2.16 MB, 974x902)
2.16 MB
2.16 MB PNG
>>
File: bastien_lapage_2.png (906 KB, 597x884)
906 KB
906 KB PNG
>>
>>
this is just how most artist painted after photography unless they try not to. you see begs and ints making works that are closer to capturing individuality and the ephemeral than old master painters even though it is clear who has better skills and artitstic insight.
>>
>>6382733
Strange how she looks like an NPC.
>>
>>6382214
Learn values.
>>
File: ChuckClose.jpg (162 KB, 621x793)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
A closely studied portrait by Chuck Close, perfectly representing the values/tones of the sitter, but failing to achieve that painterly realism of the naturalists.
>>
>>6382214
>What is the key to achieving naturalistic realism in painting?
Well, you have to go out there and paint from life. There is no way around it.
>>
>>6383547
i imagine the woman started to cry when he showed it to her
>>
>>6382214
try to draw a nonfucked head first
>>
>>6383931
Are you suggesting the perspective's wrong?
>>
>>6383547
Photorealism is ugly and incomplete. The more hyperphotorealistic you get the uglier it gets. I’m not even talking about paintings at this point; just photography in general.
>>
I want to stone the half of the /ic/ to death with hardcover art history books
>>
>>6383547
That's because he didn't represent the values perfectly.
Those highlights are way too overblown and some areas of the face are completely flat.
>>
>>6382236
you're right. he did it better
>>
i hate this realistic shit. being called a realist for me is like being called a slur.
>>
>>6383547
looks like she's smeared in oil like the american she is
>>
>>6382400
It's gotta be the overcast lighting
>>
File: 1653622792178.jpg (181 KB, 1246x1312)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
the key is to work those values until it looks real
>>
Mid-key, few jumps in value and saturation. Liberal use of fresnel effect and atmospheric perspective on skin, as well as very selective with detail to mimic eyesight. The examples you posted as falling short don't quite model form as well, they are too uniformly detailed and saturated.
>>
File: N01612_10.jpg (317 KB, 1230x1536)
317 KB
317 KB JPG
Six Lectures on Painting by George Clausen:

https://archive.org/details/sixlecturesonpai00clau/mode/2up
>>
Contrast the tight handling of the head with the much more impressionistic background. This does emulate the optics of the human eye.
>>
>>6382545
Interesting take. I wonder if it's just a personal preference? At least for me, it's pretty far to the 'painterly' side of things that have that almost chilling realism. Anything too perfectly rendered just seems dull. Especially with portraits, I really enjoy when it's really only the face, and only the important points therein that are rendered with detail and it blurs out from there. But then again, that's also thee style of candid portrait photography I enjoy, with and extremely narrow focal plane. Might be that it more accurately parallels the way humans actually look at things, just hit the high points and mentally sort of fill in the rest subconsciously.
pic related Scott Burdick is the first one that sprang to mind for that style, though he's obviously taking after Richard Schmid.
>>
File: waterfall.png (1.37 MB, 730x960)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB PNG
Here's a Schmid painting, even though it's not a portrait it follows the same style. Nothing is particularly detailed at all, and yet it somehow feels rather real, considerably more so than the bland digital concept art that relies so heavily on various brushes to imply detail. Why does this work and those don't?
>>
>>6384647
Does fresnel effect refer to the “highlight” of pic related? I look up the “effect” of the fresnel effect and I can see that there’s more to it than that, but it seems that all those qualities could all fit within the category of the “highlight”.
I think the fresnel effect could also be called “reflected light” since that’s what it is but then there would be confusion about which type of reflected light you’re referring to. And if you refer to the fresnel effect as “highlight” then it could also cause confusion because maybe highlight can refer to other things, or maybe ”highlight” is just not a good description for the fresnel effect. Therefore “fresnel effect” is the best phrase to use for describing this category of light. Is this all correct?
>>
Unironically classical painting fundamentals.

edge, value, hue, saturation, light
very difficult to attain mastery in all these things
>>
>>6385182
no such thing as mastery in art
>>
>>6385178

I wouldn't suppose that nature makes any distinctions between these light phenomena. However, specular highlights typically imply a glossy or wet material and have an angle of incidence that is more perpendicular to the light source. The fresnel effect occurs across many materials that aren't very reflective when the angle of a plane is more aligned with the viewing plane (either vertical or horizontal) of the viewer. It might as well be shorthand for ambient light. For people this would mainly be tinting the planes of the cheeks, neck sides, the shoulders, etc in the hue of the ambient light (the sky), which is what you see in some of these pieces. It's one of those things that give skin its glowing waxy quality.
>>
File: image.png (2.22 MB, 980x1350)
2.22 MB
2.22 MB PNG
>>6384928
>Don't state, indicate.
>>
File: fresnel-animation-1.gif (508 KB, 380x380)
508 KB
508 KB GIF
>>6385178
Check this out.
https://www.dorian-iten.com/fresnel/
>>
>>6384070
>he did it better
he didn't do better than capturing real outdoor light effects, in fact that's his weak point, he captures the lighting conditions he's working in, which is indoor studio lighting, not the outdoor light he's setting his subjects in, the 19th century academic studio painter's unconvincing light effects is something the impressionists were responding to with their making a point of painting outside in order to more accurately observe the real world exterior lighting qualities, a fine a painter as bouguereau undoubtedly is, depicting realistic outdoor light wasn't his strong point
>>
>all the paintings are overcast
Basically an exposure trick, an overcast painting that mostly focuses on the midtones can perfectly replicate reality because there are no places where your eyes will have to adjust exposure or where the angle of incidence comes into play.

Meanwhile with paintings (and photos) of situations with strong light you have two options, focus on either the light or the shadow and neglect the other like real exposure, or do an HDR-style light where you focus on both, either case you're painting something that doesn't happen IRL since in reality your eyes would be able to switch between focusing on the light or the dark part and in the painting/photo they'd be static, and the highlights and other notable things that change depending on angle of incidence would change depending on the position of your eyes as you shift them around and your head bobbles and sways whereas again they'd be static, and HDR lighting just generally doesn't happen.
>>
>>6385205
ok you fucking nerd thanks for correcting me
>>
>>6385216
Shame this doesn't explain *why* this happens, what is it about light rays at shallow angles that makes them more reflective than the ones at steep angles
>>
>>6385639
its true, you would call bouguereau more of a master than sargent? what's your measure of "mastery"? It's a meaningless thing to say when put into context
>>
>>6382214
>What is the key to achieving naturalistic realism in painting?
Painting from life for 5-10 years.
>>
>>6385644
I think as the angle changes, the bumps in the surface are stacking behind each other, so to your eye, they are closer, thus a smoother surface, more reflective. Could be mistaken though, that is just my guess.
>>
>>6385644
>>6385668

The simplified explanation is that it takes more energy for a light ray to change directions completely. So if the angle of incidence is shallow, there only needs to be a slight change in direction.
>>
>>6385644

The fresnel effect was one of the first examples of evidence of light as a wave. There are loads of intense maths explanations that aren't necessary to dive into. Essentially light interacts with the electromagnetic waves of a surface plane, and depending on the phase oscillation it will cancel or amplify. It simply takes a lot less energy to reflect at shallow angles so that's what we see.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12035/why-does-light-reflect-more-intensely-when-it-hits-a-surface-at-a-large-angle#:~:text=At%20a%20high%20angle%20of,to%20have%20a%20high%20intensity.&text=At%20higher%20intensities%2C%20more%20of,or%20turned%20into%20wasted%20energy.
>>
>>6385504
If I’m going to study from casts and such, should I do it outside? Are there any advantages to studying them outside compared to a very controlled and isolated atelier-style lighting?
>>
>>6386783
You'll want a consistent light source. The earth rotates fast so the sun is not ideal...
>>
>>6382214
>Is it the values, the colours, the drawing, the forms, etc.
yes
>>
>>6384928
I would theorize that perhaps your mind notices the patterns, then tries to "fill in the blanks" and since the brain doesn't care too much for detail, your mind projects the aspect of the image. It aims to FEEL real instead of merely wholly accurate.
for example >>6385215 I can smell this image
>>
>>6382236
It is just you.
For me this painting is very lively.
It show in that moment, the artist love the girl, not a sexual kind of love but a pure love.
Your eyes see natural color base on your mood. The feeling of love make you see brighter and clearer colors. That why a lot of artist only paint from life, they want to paint that experience as real as possible.
>>
>>6389657
not them, but i like your post, and see exactly what you mean.
like when pros can make reality feel more real and animated than a perfect 1:1 reproduction, by tweaking the right things in just the right ways so seeing their work’s almost as much of an experience as it is a basic viewing.
>>
>>6385504
>weak point
lol, I'm not even a fan of Bouguereau but pre modern painting wasn't about copying nature in its exact state. The goal was the painting as a beautiful material object where the (true) artist uses nature as inspiration but is not slave to it, mindlessly copying it. Which means, for instance, that the balance between coloir temperatures, value composition, beauty of form, spacial depth was way more important than the exact optical depiction of was happening in reality in a given instant. There is a greater degree of invention for the decorative aspect and that was lost in subsequent periods of painting.
>>
>>6389657
>Your eyes see natural color base on your mood.

This is just nonsense.
>>
>>6389657
>Your eyes see natural color base on your mood. The feeling of love make you see brighter and clearer colors
utter fucking horse shit
>>
>>6389657
>Your eyes see natural color base on your mood.

You messed up boy
>>
>>6389657
You dun goofed nigga
>>
>>6390003
>>6390046
>>6390072
>>6390079
felt like he was thinking about hindsight, memory, and when thinking about whatever subject you’ll put on the page you take its visual cues from your memory which is a really malleable fallible kind of thing, not just life drawing
its kind of fun because even we all remembered he said a completely different thing based on our interpretations, those being based on our own past interpretations, so would remember even reading your quote post differently. /tldr
>>
>>6390072
you are an npc
>>
File: main-image.jpg (178 KB, 926x1200)
178 KB
178 KB JPG
>>6382214
painting ugly (upclose)
> Some artists seem to render subjects very accurately but still not achieve this effect?

This is because they try to paint every little detail which is not how your eyes/brain actually sees and processes the world.

If you've ever seen a sargent painting in real life, when you stand at a distance it looks incredible. But when you get upclose the illusion stops working and it looks almost abstract from how loose and undefined the brush strokes are.

so basically
>don't try to "fix" WHILE you are putting in your colors, do that after.
>use a color checker (you would be surprised how unsaturated and dark colors actually are in real life)

another reason might be that by not adding needless detail, your brain fills in the blanks which is closer to what happens you look at things IRL, so its more interesting to look at.

THE BIGGEST REASON VERY IMPORTANT:

Your brain is wired to love abstraction, because nature is abstract. When you look at a beautiful tree, you arent paying attention to the detail on every single leaf all at once.
The tree does not plan its leaves out in the same exact way everytime.

Zoom into pic related, you will see how much of it looks pretty much like random crap, but its still pleasing to look at.
This painting looks so real, but the detail is just not there in most areas.

If you zoom into the best realist paintings, I can guarantee every spot you choose could look like its own abstract painting



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.