[Thomasin Dewhurst]

I think asking yourself "what is the point?" about the very realist paintings that are being painted (and winning competitions) at the moment is something valid. I am quite often seduced by the realism, and impressed by the energy and staying-power these artists have (it's a bit like becoming fit enough to run a great marathon), but that question about the point of it all always comes up in my mind. The paintings are like novels that have all the characters and places described with great care and detail, but there is no real crafting of story around a central climax that expresses an original idea, and even the lack of such structure is not considered.

Originally, when photorealism first came about it was a comment of the meaningless of a Modernist expression in the midst of thinking society's cynicism, resulting in part from a disillusionment with the shallow ideas and obsession with commercialism that was taking such a firm hold at the time, wasn't it? Anything unashamedly less "civilised" than the new glossy advertisments that were dominating visual culture (or so it seemed) or, more accurately, anything less "civilised" that was created without a sense of its own irony, was seen as below par; irresponsible; blatantly ignoring the crisis that was looming over the increasingly consumer-centered western world. Now it's just a gimmick, albeit a very clever one, but there's very little self-critical thinking; very little standing back and looking at one's place in today's world, with it's own place in history, and, of course how history has traditionally been described, who described it, and again, of course, what is included and what left out of documented history, and whether or not this is fair, and why. There's so much to consider, at the very least it's the complacent repetitiousness of photorealism that is rather shameful.