I tend to like artwork that is more interpretive. The Impressionists nailed it mostly for me although I do appreciate other artists’ work as well.

IMO creating lifelike faces of people and animals is the pinnacle of human ability when it comes to art. It’s very difficult.

It is the ultimate expression of pure skill.
Any talentless hack can randomly splatter paint on a canvas and say “I meant to do that” cough jackson pollock.
No such excuse is possible if the task is an exact recreation of reality.

There are countless no-name artists that can do realistic paintings and drawings.

You’ll often find them earning a modest income doing commissions for portraits of people’s pets.

Far fewer are able to do something creative and innovative. Jackson Pollock, by the way, could draw and paint with skill. The point is to not do what every other artist could already do.

Oh, I love those kinds of paintings! So real they look like a photo, so nice :)

I like art that shows what is in the artists mind rather than realistic art.

I like something in between. I draw realistic portraits, but in a way that’s easy to tell that it’s a drawing and not photo realistic. I’ve drawn extremely photo realistic pieces before and they actually don’t get as positive of feedback.

Here’s a cat portrait I did last year. Instead of drawing every detail of the fur, I like using the black color of the sketch paper. Although, I’m betting that even this cat portrait is too realistic for some people’s tastes. I definitely get the appeal of impressionism.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Caqxu83sdX-/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

I remember asking a question about modern art once and I was like the only one here who actually liked it. Lol. I’m with @Kropotkin on this one. An artist like Picasso was capable of painting realistically; he chose not to. After photography was invented, painting’s main function was no longer to represent life; it became more figurative and abstract. I’m not saying these kinds of photorealistic paintings are not aesthetically pleasing and I’m not saying I want all art to be abstract, but to me value in art comes from the artist’s expression and whether an artist is doing something different that stands out and has an appeal beyond “it looks like the thing”. Plus, some photography has its own value as art.

@rockfan I love the picture! You are very talented.

I’m so ignorant when it comes to art, but I like a painting that looks like a real thing, but not like a photo. Grant Wood is a good example. I also prefer watercolors over oils, and chalk and charcoal can catch my eye, also.

That’s not to say that people who can make a painting look like a photo aren’t good. They’re amazing! I loved the facebook link and the way the artist showed his paintings in different stages!

@rockfan Your painting (charcoal?) is gorgeous!

@chyna
@smudges

Thank you!

@rockfan I third that reaction!

I like art that looks like things. I get that some people like abstract art that is just shapes and colors, but I find it boring and lazy. If I can’t tell whether a thing was done by a finger-painting child or a professional artist…I’m going to assume the former.

That said, it doesn’t mean the art has to be photorealistic to appeal to me. The classic greco-roman statues or some of the great renaissance works strove for realisim in their depictions, though often unrealism in their subject. I like that. But other styles that are a little less photo-realistic can be enjoyable as well. I just think there comes a point where one’s style is starting to look like an excuse to cover for lower skill levels where it starts looking less interesting to me.

The difference between Pollack and people who can draw realistic faces is that pollack was artistically creative but the face drawers have artistic skill. The equivalent in music would be the classically trained musician who can play the most difficult pieces flawlessly as compared to the street musician who can improvise soulfully

One of my favorite artists is Rothko. Very abstract. His art reminds me of my grandfather’s paintings. I just saw some of his works yesterday by coincidence, I didn’t expect his paintings to be in the museum I went to. Some of the information alongside the paintings said, Rothko considered his paintings to be “realistic,” because their emotional and spiritual import kept them tethered to the natural world and human experience. “I have never thought that painting a picture has anything to do with self-expression.” Rothko told students at Pratt Institute in 1958. “It is a communication about the world to someone else.”

I like both very realistic and very abstract. Most abstract artists I know can sketch and paint amazingly realistically, my grandfather did amazing work from his school days, but those were assignments.

@rockfan Fabulous.

I’m facilitated by paintings that are realistic like a photograph. It’s like magic that comes out of the paint. It’s unbelievable.

I tried to paint a portrait a few times and failed miserably.

@rockfan….fantastic

I can like some very realistic art, but it depends what the art shows. Same with photography. Only duplicating a photo with paint, impresses me, but that seems to me like a technical skill more than art.

I assume you mean paintings. I love ultra realism, yes I do.