Realism or Impressionism nowadays?

[Adriano Maggi]

I've found many technical discussions on the forum and I 'm wondering if the impressionist technique is or isn't the most used nowadays.
Thanks
Adriano

[Allan Rahbek]

Hi Adriano,
I see that this is your first post and I

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Allan Rahbek

Actually I find that painting your impression of things is the highest aim for a realist painter.

Allan, you've said this very well!

And welcome to the Forum, Adriano!

[Adriano Maggi]

Originally Posted by Linda Brandon

Allan, you've said this very well!

And welcome to the Forum, Adriano!

Thanks LInda for supporting my inesperience in the Forum
I hope to share my love for impressionism,and find people who love
shadows enlightened from color and "divisionism".(do you use this word in painting?)
Adriano

[Adriano Maggi]

Originally Posted by Adriano Maggi

I've found many technical discussions on the forum and I 'm wondering if the impressionist technique is or isn't the most used nowadays.
Thanks
Adriano

Hi Allan
I saw Velasquez's jewel in a painting of his, that was exactly painted just the some way Sargent does.You can't recognise it unless you stay in a distance. If a realistic painter should paint it from a photo,wouldn't get the some result. When an eye looks at an object,it can't see the drawing as from a nearby photo, but only light and shadows transformed into colours.
Adriano

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Adriano Maggi

You can't recognise it unless you stay in a distance.

It seems to me this is exactly what impressionism (and Sargent, who was of tthe same time period and influenced by impressionism) has contributed to present-day realism. We now have this historical precedent for being "painterly," suggesting something with a few strokes that look abstract if seen from close up.

[Adriano Maggi]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Tyng

It seems to me this is exactly what impressionism (and Sargent, who was of tthe same time period and influenced by impressionism) has contributed to present-day realism. We now have this historical precedent for being "painterly," suggesting something with a few strokes that look abstract if seen from close up.

Hi Alexandra
The way we paint,when you are immersed in a strong source of light ,(in the past there were only candels) forces the eye to see complementary colours (that photos can't register). If you put dirty colours on the canvas,how can your eye be forced to see brilliant colours?

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Adriano,

Ciao ed benvenuto ! I see you finally got approved!

I don't paint in an impressionistic style, but have noticed that what people term realistic is often very loosely defined. It's definition as "faithful representations of reality" depends often to what extend the individual is able to recognize what is being depicted and by what type of depiction, weather impressionistic, painterly or super realistic the individual is moved. As Allan said:

It is my impression that Impressionism was originally intended to be an exploration of the real light and color phenomenon = a better realism.

In my opinion the impressionistic style of placing multiple small strokes next to each other to reflect the play of light, as originally intended by the Impressionists, is no longer favored and has been replaced by what is termed painterly (like Sargent's work).

[Adriano Maggi]

Originally Posted by Enzie Shahmiri

Adriano,




In my opinion the impressionistic style of placing multiple small strokes next to each other to reflect the play of light, as originally intended by the Impressionists, is no longer favored and has been replaced by what is termed painterly (like Sargent's work).

Hi Enzie
I 'll send you an impressionist photo, if you should make a painting from it you should certainly make an impressionist painting. Moreover only if you paint from life you can get the complementary colours that photo can't have. Photo was taken from Camillo Madonna ,a friend of mine.
Best greetings
Adriano