Is there a technical reason (or reasons) why painters can be so realistic now?

[BrettStah]

Is there in existence today one or more reasons why an artist can realistic pictures today, which prior artists from time long since past (Da Vinci, Michelango, etc.) would not be able to paint?

http://www.moolf.com/amazing/paintin...an-maleki.html


(This is not a criticism of any art styles, or anything at all like that. I'm just wondering if the paints, canvases, brushes, etc. of the time would have made it impossible for the long-dead artists to paint such realistic pictures).

[mbklein]

Nope. Hyper-realism has just never been all that in vogue. Still, a lot of the old masters could do amazingly realistic work when they wanted to. Rembrandt comes to mind.

The only technical reason I can think of, as far as human subjects are concerned, is getting them to sit still for the length of time that this much detail requires. If you're painting from a photograph, that problem goes away.

[dcheesi]

No technical reasons, but art techniques have advanced a bit over the centuries. Some of the things that make a painting look realistic (eg. perspective) seem obvious to us, but were not formally taught and understood in earlier eras. Individual artists may have had an intuitive grasp of these concepts, but since they weren't being taught, chances were that no one artist would get all of them right.

[pgogborn]

Perhaps there have been improvements in paint, brushes and the surface to be painted on - at the very least some photo realistic painters use electric spray guns.

And in some cases perhaps using magnifying glasses and very strong artificial light can help.

Also in a way if you want to make something photo realistic you have got to be aware of what a photo looks like - and photos are modern technology (skip argument about camera obscuras).

[Philosofy]

Outside of airbrush, there have been no developments in paint that I know of that would help artistic painters. Most of the breakthroughs in paint over the last 25 years have been for environmental reasons (waterborne), durability (UV absorbers, better resins, etc.) and cure technology (UV Cure.) None of these make a difference in artist's paints.

[InigoMontoya]

Originally Posted by Philosofy

Outside of airbrush, there have been no developments in paint that I know of that would help artistic painters. Most of the breakthroughs in paint over the last 25 years have been for environmental reasons (waterborne), durability (UV absorbers, better resins, etc.) and cure technology (UV Cure.) None of these make a difference in artist's paints.

Regardless, the number and quality of pigments available to even a casual painter today almost certainly dwarfs those available to even a master 200 years ago.

[5thcrewman]

It's all about the HD baby!

[pgogborn]

As an example of "if you want to make something photo realistic you have got to be aware of what a photo looks like" - and the role of the forerunner of the photograph I offer the works of Giovanni Antonio Canal, called Canaletto, 1697-1768. It is a historical certainty that Canaletto used a camera obscura.


Giovanni Antonio Canal, il Canaletto
The Piazza San Marco, Venice, looking towards the Procuratie Nuove and the Church of San Geminiano from the Campo di San Basso
dated to the 1730s

A matter of speculation rather than fact but some think Johannes, Jan or Johan Vermeer 1632-1675 used a camera obscura Hockney's 'Lucid' Bomb At the Art Establishment


Johannes Vermeer, Mistress and Maid, c.1666/67
Frick Collection, New York, USA. van Delft Art Reproductions