Graphic art like paint pencil work have been in style since the renaissance. A generally common goal for artists was to create a piece that was as close to 'real' as possible. It wasn't until artists like picasso and vango that realism ceased to be so important. After all... with the invention of cameras, what was the point in making something appear as if it were 'real' when all that had to be done was point a camera and shoot if the desired quality was 'real'? So varitions became available: surrealism. Pointillism, Abstract etc... Accuracy is no longer the only goal for an artist. Creativity and imagination are now just as important. So... next time you see an amazing peice of art, try not to immediately think, "Wow, that looks real!" Try to notice the depth, color, texture and imagination that goes into each separate work.

agreed... :) it's fun to try realism, if you're a nut for detail it's extra fun... but always let your own creative juices flow too...! I've always wanted to do some mega realistic work... but after trying it for a while... I was finding it was stifling my originality

Well there is certainly no lack of imagination here.. I am always amazed by the depth of creativity and originality I see here....

couldn't have said it better myself. BRAVO! ;D

But surely you must agree that to do something like surrealism you need to be somewhat adept at realism?
I am somewhat split on realism myself, because I know that I am far from skilled at it, but when I make attempts, it helps improve all my artistic styles... I personally like good non-realistic pieces over good realistic pieces, and I would argue the latter is much more difficult. But then again, I've noticed good artists tend to be good at both... (take Kasha for example :-))

I am confused of what the term "realism" really means. If a drawing teacher knows, I would like him/her to tell me. Do people use the term "realism" to indicate the school that a drawing belongs to? Like, romanticism, surrealism, neoclassicism. Or are these things out of fashion and the term "realism" means anything not cartoon related? I am curious. <:)
|XOD|

realism generally refers to photorealism/photorealistic. IE, as close to "reality" as one can perceive. In theory, perfect realism would be indiscernible from a photo.

Actually, it'd be kinda boring to view a perfect realism drawing though....^^;;;

By this definition I could say that many romantic, classical and even surrealism school paintings are very realistic, sometimes more realistic than those of the realism school. I do not know what exactly "perfect" realism would mean. A very detailed drawing of a face would be more realistic than a distant, blurry photo of the same face. But even if you can achieve perfect realism (an accurate copy of a certain photo maybe), I do not think that the drawing would be boring, because besides the painting technique, a drawing has a meaning, drawings picture something after all! >:)
|XOD|

Well, I was just pointing out that it's that "small bit of difference" from the actual photo that gives you interest in viewing the drawing^^;.Oh.....forgot to mention, that's just "my" opinion.

are you saying photography is not art, now?

Huh?I said, it wouldn't be too interesting for me to view a "drawing" that looked exactly like the photo reference.How is that translated into "I don't think photography is art"?

Maybe Gigandas means that he likes when a painter adds something of his/her own into a drawing. <:)
|XOD|

Yeah, that's "kinda" what I meant...

Make no mistake -- i am not saying there is necessarily anything boring about realism, or that it isn't a skill that should be practiced. I only said the above because i read a lot of comments that i believe are just a little bit ignorant. Not stupid, but misguided.
So why not let some of those people in on what i consider to be a valuable truth to art.

Photography is artwork just as is painting. Some people argue that because it doesn't take any partivular coordination or abilties to press a button on a camera, the photo born from that shouldn't be treated with anything other than a, 'O that'sn ice." Of course, there is a lot of depth to photos and even before one figures in lighting/exposure/color a photographer has already created something that captures his or her thoughts.

If someone takes a camera and shoots a photo that he thinks it is nice, but instead of presenting the photo as his photographic artwork, he tries to copy it as a drawing and then says: "Hello, this drawing is a copy of a picture I took", how would you critique shuch a work? >;)
|XOD|

Well, if you're asking me,it's not so much the fact someone does that, it's when you make the comparison between the reference and the drawing.I mean if I were just to look at an exact replica of a picture in which someone drew, of course I may think it's amazing, but there isn't much more to it than that.That's what I'm trying to say...

well ya, but in the same way, Gigandas, if you can't tell the difference between a photo and a drawn replica of it and you don't really think it's anything other than talented, then how can u really respect the photo it was from? this is a very grey line that artists walk because fraud i rampant in the modern art world. Some people can quite literally throw something together that is sold to high dollar businessmen even if they don't really give a damn about what they've just created. If u draw the clonclusion that art is based on the creator, then the above scenario would completely devastate self expression. that means that art can only include everyone who looks at or enjoys it... not just the ones who mkae it.

Since it's kind of a complex situation, it's hard to explain everything, but it would actually mean something if you couldn't distinguish it as a drawing and you thought it was a photo and therefore, thought it to be the original.That would be a whole different situation than if you compared a replica drawing of a picture knowing you reproduced it into a piece of "exact realism."So I don't believe I'm wrong in my opinion or lacking in respect for either types of art.This is one of those things that have infinite possibilities in which you can debate for either side.

ok, I wasn't patient enough to read all of the above, lol.. but no, it's not boring whatsoever Gig... it amazes the poopy outta me...
and I think it'd be hilarious to see a perfect realism head, and a perfect cartoon body, with a surreal, pointillistic(?) lol , abstract... background.. I like a mix of everything ;)

I would like that too, only if Lori was in the painting! >;)
|XOD|

you big flirt... :P lol hehe