Revisiting Realism

Many believed the invention of the camera in the 19th century meant the end of painting. Why would we need painters to document the world when we could just take a photo? Indeed, as photographic technology advanced and became more popular, art transformed. But rather than signaling the end of painting, the camera gave artists freedom to get creative. Instead of perfect realism, artists were soon experimenting with abstraction.

Then in the middle of the 20th century, a group of artists reconsidered realism, taking it to a whole new level called photorealism. They made paintings that looked like they could be photographs, often embracing photography as a tool to help their creative process.

The camera was invented in the 1800s. Cameras gave artists freedom to be creative. It was no longer their job to show the world realistically. They played with abstraction—art that doesn’t try to represent real things.

In the mid-1900s, artists took realism to a whole new level called photorealism. They made paintings that looked like photos. They used photography in the creative process.

Portrait artist Chuck Close once said, “No painting ever got made without a process.” To paint his 1969 Frank, above, Close drew a grid on an 8" x 10" photograph of his subject. He then drew a proportional grid on a 9' x 7' canvas and painted one square at a time, capturing the tiniest of details. Up close, each square is a tiny abstract painting. But from a distance, the squares form a portrait that is hyperrealistic—so realistic you might believe it’s a photo.

Close used an airbrush to apply extremely thin layers of paint, leaving no visible brushstrokes and creating a smooth, photo-like finish. In Close’s monumental painting, the subject’s pores, individual hairs, and the stitching on his clothing are all magnified. How might viewing this painting in person be different than seeing the original photo?

Chuck Close was a portrait artist. “No painting ever got made without a process,” he once said. That’s true of his 1969 painting Frank, above. To start, Close took an 8-by-10-inch photograph of his subject and drew a grid on it. He drew a proportional grid on a 9-by-7-foot canvas. This means a grid with the same number of squares as the one on the photo.

Close worked one square at a time, capturing every tiny detail. From a distance, the squares form a portrait. And it’s hyperrealistic—so realistic you might think it’s a photo.

Close used an airbrush to apply thin layers of paint. This left no visible brushstrokes, creating a smooth, photo-like finish. You can see individual hairs, pores in the subject’s skin, and stitches on his clothing.

When you look at Café Express, above, does it seem as if you are looking at two paintings pushed together? Richard Estes achieves this split-screen effect by having each visible street extend into the background. Estes, who has devoted much of his career to painting urban landscapes, created the painting by working from two separate photographs.

Estes exaggerates the glossiness of surfaces and reflections. There’s also a dramatic absence of people in the 1975 painting; in real life, this scene would be filled with people walking on the street and sitting in the café. And the textures of a real city are grittier. “I don’t want any emotion to intrude,” Estes said of his work.

Look at Café Express, above. Does it seem like you’re looking at two paintings at once? Artist Richard Estes creates a split-screen effect by working from two photographs. He paints two streets extending into the background.

Estes often paints cities. To make this one hyperrealistic, Estes adds extra shine to objects, focusing on their reflections. He also leaves out details that might be distracting. In real life, this street would be filled with people. “I don’t want any emotion to intrude,” he says.

Ralph Goings—with his mastery of light—has been called America’s Vermeer. Goings would take a photo, project it onto his canvas, and then trace the scene before painting it. He aimed to paint things as realistically as possible, and even said, “My intention always is to remove myself from the work [with] no intermediary between the viewer and the subject.”

Look carefully at his 1990 Ketchup Close-Up, above. Goings closely crops the composition, focusing on the objects. He uses highlights and shadows to emphasize every plane, or flat surface. Even the shadows of blinds hanging in the window are visible on the ketchup bottle. If you were sitting in a diner, would you pay attention to these objects on your table?

Ralph Goings was a master of light. Some people even call him America’s Vermeer. Goings took photos of scenes before painting them. He projected the photos onto his canvas and traced them before painting. This helped him paint things as realistically as possible. “My intention always is to remove myself from the work,” he says.

Look carefully at his 1990 painting Ketchup Close-Up, above. Goings zooms in on the objects. He uses highlights and shadows to emphasize every plane, or flat surface. You can even see the shadows of window blinds on the ketchup bottle.

Duane Hanson was a sculptor. But like Close, Estes, and Goings, his work is hyperrealistic, so many people associate him with these artists. Hanson’s subject matter is uniquely American, like the tourists in shorts and loud patterns, in his 1994 Old Couple on a Bench, above.

Hanson based his sculptures on real people. He positioned them to convey specific emotions, such as fatigue. He then painted the sculptures with great attention to detail, clothed them, and added real hair.

Hanson said his goal was “not about fooling people.” Instead, he hoped to inspire empathy and a recognition of “the universality of all people.”

Duane Hanson was a sculptor. Many people associate him with Close, Estes, and Goings. That’s because his work is also hyperrealistic. Two tourists are the subjects of his 1994 sculpture Old Couple on a Bench, above.

Hanson based his sculptures on real people. He posed them to convey emotions. Then he painted details like clothing and added real hair.

Hanson didn’t intend to fool viewers, he said. He wanted them to notice everyday people.