#reaslistic art

[kellyeddington]

Watch me paint what’s in the red box on Art School Live on Tuesday at noon EST!

[lordhenrysbitch]

for all people who are no longer at school but dark academia is their poison... go to that cafe and sit there mysteriously, reading russian reaslists. drink wine and recite poetry, if only to yourself. damn, learn latin. seize the circumstances. hold them hostage in an art gallery.

[thedalatribune]

© Paolo Dala

[L] Wind Effect, Popular Series Claude Monet (1891) Louvre (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates)

[R] Charing Cross Bridge Claude Monet (1926) Louvre (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates)

Impressionism

When Impressionist paintings are presented in museums today and sold for millions at auction, no one questions their legitimacy as works of art worthy of attention and esteem. But when they were first exhibited in Paris in 1874, they were regarded as unfinished, slapdash, lowbrow, and renegade. With the way art history has since evolved, or in the view of some, devolved, how do we understand these pictures whose original power lay in their ability to shock, especially when to contemporary eyes they look old, and totally unradical? What remains of their power? Why should we look and them, and what do we see? This is the case for Impressionism.

This new style didn’t arrive out of the clear blue sky, but the paintings were often created under one. A hallmark of the art that would come to be known as Impressionist was that many were painted outside of the studio and in the world, or as the French say “en plein air”. Unlike the slow, studio-based approach that held sway at the annual salons of the French Royal Academy, whereby tonal gradations were gradually built up with layer upon layer of glazes, Impressionist works were frequently begun if not completed entirely out of doors. These artists used smaller canvases that were easy to transport and finish quickly before the light or weather changed. Artists had been painting in the landscape for some time, like Dutch artists of the 17th Century, and even more recently in England, where the likes of John Constable won admirers for his pictures of villages and countrysides, and J. M. W. Turner wowed with his own highly dramatic and abstracted scenes from nature. In France, where Impressionism was brewing, painting in the landscape was an established practice, artists escaping Paris and political instability to observe nature and render it in a relatively lifelike manner. These artists also experimented with style and technique, trying out looser brushwork and brighter colors. But landscapes were considered to be genre painting and less important in the eyes of the Academy that, more than nature, valued the study of ancient Greek and Roman art. Figures were to be strongly defined, and set amid ordered and harmonious compositions. This was the kind of subject matter favored by the Academy, pulling from history, mythology, and religion. They didn’t want to see regular people doing regular stuff. The so-called Reaslists had already challenged the academy’s values by painting scenes from contemporary life, sometimes admitted to the salon and sometimes denied. Gustave Courbet built his own pavilion during the 1855 Paris World’s Fair, circumventing the official juried exhibition, and showing this painting where, it’s worth noting, the focus is on a landscape painter. In 1863, the state organized a special exhibition to feature works rejected by the Salon, including challengers to the status quo who wanted to paint their own way and show the here and now. Like Édouard Manet, who would not go on to show with the Impressionists, but was close friends with them, endorsed their work, and shared numerous interests and techniques. The artists who participated in the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874 had shown their art within the Salon and also grown tired of having work rejected from it. So they put together their own show in the former studio of the photographer Nadar, calling themselves the Anonymous Society of Painters, Sculptors, Printmakers, etc. There was no state involvement, no jury, no hierarchy of subject matter. They were each exploring their own concerns, not working toward any shared mission or manifesto. If there had been a manifesto it could have only read something like: “Not the Salon” or “I want to do my own thing, thanks.”

But IN GENERAL we could say this group was mostly painting from modern life,  from modern life, cityscapes and landscapes, using a brighter palette of colors, broken brushstrokes, and loosely defined forms, that gave the works an air of spontaneity. So much so that art critic Louis Leroy commented on the accuracy of the title of one of Claude Monet’s paintings on display, Impression: Sunrise. To Leroy, it was merely an impression, a sloppy and unfinished sketch, unsuitable for display or sale. He dubbed the show “Exhibition of the Impressionists” as an insult, but another critic recast the name in a positive light, saying of the new work: “It’s lively, brisk, light - captivating. What a rapid grasp of the object and what an amusing facture. It’s summary, agreed, but how spot on the marks are!” As you know the name stuck, and the artists came around, too. Impressionist landscapes, unlike those that came before, often betrayed their place in time, showing city folk in the latest fashions or enjoying leisure activities in the Paris suburbs. New railway lines had made travel out of the city easier than ever, and the Impressionists were unafraid to show signs of this new way of life, and also of the increased industrialization around them. Life was getting faster, and it followed that art should, too… Paris had changed enormously in the preceding decades, having undergone wholesale renovation beginning in the 1850s. A crowded, medieval city had been replaced with one that was much more open, cleaner, and safer, with wide boulevards, public gardens, and lots and lots of light. And the Impressionists did love their light, trying again and again to arrest its ephemeral effects. They liked to show it broken by clouds, dappled and filtering through the trees, oh and especially as it reflects on water. Even when painting interiors, which they did indeed do, they loved to include a window, often with sheer drapes through which light could filter. Because they were often capturing atmospheric effects that would change with the passing minutes, the paintings have the feel of improvisation, even if they took a while to get just right.

Monet often worked on several canvases at once, shuffling to different works as the light changed, or returning to the same spot daily to patiently await the return of the desired conditions. New and brighter pigments had recently become available, which the Impressionists put to good use, juxtaposing vivid colors in ways that were startling to audiences at the time. Even shadows, it turned out, didn’t have to be just black or brown or gray… The arrival of photography had also revealed new ways of framing images, suggesting the possibility of unbalanced, snapshot-like compositions, long before cameras would reach snapshot size and speed.

Some have theorized that now that photography could capture reality so well, painting was then freed from the shackles of realism and could do what paint does best, which is being colorful and tactile, and you know, painty. This new kind of art also involved more women and represented them in new ways. Berthe Morisot participated in all but one of the Impressionist exhibitions, and gave us remarkable views into the domestic sphere and lives of well-to-do women. Mary Cassatt joined the ranks as well, and became known for depicting women and children as well as her own family. Women of a variety of classes were subjects for the Impressionists, and not just nude and lying on a bed anymore, but shown doing the things they actually do, in the home as well as out in the world, enjoying. Paris’s nightlife, and also being it. A population boom following the Franco-Prussian war had brought about a new mixing of genders and social classes, which we see unfolding in Impressionist depictions of street life, cafe culture, and various forms of entertainment. The membership of this motley crew of artists fluctuated with each exhibition, including names you’ve definitely heard of as well as ones you probably haven’t. By their last exhibition in 1886, few of the artists were working in style you’d likely identify as “Impressionist.” Core members had evolved their own styles and were exhibiting independently. And the artists we now consider Neo-Impressionist had arrived, like Georges Seurat and Paul. Signac, who were interested in the more scientific aspects of color and how our eyes process it…

Impressionism was one of the first of a string of avant-garde art movements, each rejecting tradition and embracing the modern, promoting new ideas about what art could be and what it could do. Whether or not you’re familiar with the succession of “isms” that followed, you already know the narrative: students learn from their teachers, but then repudiate their lessons and push on to forge their own paths. Novel methods over time lose their ability to shock, new ideas replace old, and the cycle continues. And now it’s gotten ever faster. An 1874 review of the first Impressionist exhibition posed the question, “Is the absence of rules a good thing? Only the future will enlighten us…” And enlighten us it has, demonstrating the breadth of what the pursuit of singular vision can bring forth.

But the best case for Impressionism is the art itself. In a museum filled with the dark and dramatic art that preceded it, and the often confounding art that follows, Impressionism is really… pleasant. It’s not violent or distressing or sentimental or moralistic. It’s recognizable subject matter rendered in an interesting but not overtly challenging - by contemporary standards - kind of way. It’s an optical delight, giving us windows into a fascinating historical moment, created by supremely talented artists who pushed art in new directions to better represent that moment and their own view of it. And that is enough.

Sarah Urist Green The Case for Impressionism

[lancelotslair]

the backgrounds like, wonky and rushed just cuz it looked off without SOMETHING, anyways Duckweed herds deer <3 (hard work when you are a dilophosaurus and the deer are deer)

The kids met him while at the lakefront with their (napping) parents :)

[isoetiks]

Jan van Huysum - Bouquet of Flowers in an Urn

“In a letter to a patron he complained that he could not finish a still life that was to include a yellow rose until that flower blossomed the following spring.”

[theolddalatribune]

Impressionism by Paolo Dala

Las Lavanderas Fernando Amorsolo (1951) National Museum (Manila, Philippines)

When Impressionist paintings are presented in museums today and sold for millions at auction, no one questions their legitimacy as works of art worthy of attention and esteem. But when they were first exhibited in Paris in 1874, they were regarded as unfinished, slapdash, lowbrow, and renegade. With the way art history has since evolved, or in the view of some, devolved, how do we understand these pictures whose original power lay in their ability to shock, especially when to contemporary eyes they look old, and totally unradical? What remains of their power? Why should we look and them, and what do we see? This is the case for Impressionism.

This new style didn’t arrive out of the clear blue sky, but the paintings were often created under one. A hallmark of the art that would come to be known as Impressionist was that many were painted outside of the studio and in the world, or as the French say "en plein air". Unlike the slow, studio-based approach that held sway at the annual salons of the French Royal Academy, whereby tonal gradations were gradually built up with layer upon layer of glazes, Impressionist works were frequently begun if not completed entirely out of doors. These artists used smaller canvases that were easy to transport and finish quickly before the light or weather changed. Artists had been painting in the landscape for some time, like Dutch artists of the 17th Century, and even more recently in England, where the likes of John Constable won admirers for his pictures of villages and countrysides, and J. M. W. Turner wowed with his own highly dramatic and abstracted scenes from nature. In France, where Impressionism was brewing, painting in the landscape was an established practice, artists escaping Paris and political instability to observe nature and render it in a relatively lifelike manner. These artists also experimented with style and technique, trying out looser brushwork and brighter colors. But landscapes were considered to be genre painting and less important in the eyes of the Academy that, more than nature, valued the study of ancient Greek and Roman art. Figures were to be strongly defined, and set amid ordered and harmonious compositions. This was the kind of subject matter favored by the Academy, pulling from history, mythology, and religion. They didn’t want to see regular people doing regular stuff. The so-called Reaslists had already challenged the academy’s values by painting scenes from contemporary life, sometimes admitted to the salon and sometimes denied. Gustave Courbet built his own pavilion during the 1855 Paris World’s Fair, circumventing the official juried exhibition, and showing this painting where, it’s worth noting, the focus is on a landscape painter. In 1863, the state organized a special exhibition to feature works rejected by the Salon, including challengers to the status quo who wanted to paint their own way and show the here and now. Like Édouard Manet, who would not go on to show with the Impressionists, but was close friends with them, endorsed their work, and shared numerous interests and techniques. The artists who participated in the first Impressionist exhibition in 1874 had shown their art within the Salon and also grown tired of having work rejected from it. So they put together their own show in the former studio of the photographer Nadar, calling themselves the Anonymous Society of Painters, Sculptors, Printmakers, etc. There was no state involvement, no jury, no hierarchy of subject matter. They were each exploring their own concerns, not working toward any shared mission or manifesto. If there had been a manifesto it could have only read something like: “Not the Salon” or “I want to do my own thing, thanks.”

But IN GENERAL we could say this group was mostly painting from modern life,  from modern life, cityscapes and landscapes, using a brighter palette of colors, broken brushstrokes, and loosely defined forms, that gave the works an air of spontaneity. So much so that art critic Louis Leroy commented on the accuracy of the title of one of Claude Monet’s paintings on display, Impression: Sunrise. To Leroy, it was merely an impression, a sloppy and unfinished sketch, unsuitable for display or sale. He dubbed the show “Exhibition of the Impressionists” as an insult, but another critic recast the name in a positive light, saying of the new work: “It’s lively, brisk, light - captivating. What a rapid grasp of the object and what an amusing facture. It’s summary, agreed, but how spot on the marks are!” As you know the name stuck, and the artists came around, too. Impressionist landscapes, unlike those that came before, often betrayed their place in time, showing city folk in the latest fashions or enjoying leisure activities in the Paris suburbs. New railway lines had made travel out of the city easier than ever, and the Impressionists were unafraid to show signs of this new way of life, and also of the increased industrialization around them. Life was getting faster, and it followed that art should, too... Paris had changed enormously in the preceding decades, having undergone wholesale renovation beginning in the 1850s. A crowded, medieval city had been replaced with one that was much more open, cleaner, and safer, with wide boulevards, public gardens, and lots and lots of light. And the Impressionists did love their light, trying again and again to arrest its ephemeral effects. They liked to show it broken by clouds, dappled and filtering through the trees, oh and especially as it reflects on water. Even when painting interiors, which they did indeed do, they loved to include a window, often with sheer drapes through which light could filter. Because they were often capturing atmospheric effects that would change with the passing minutes, the paintings have the feel of improvisation, even if they took a while to get just right.

Monet often worked on several canvases at once, shuffling to different works as the light changed, or returning to the same spot daily to patiently await the return of the desired conditions. New and brighter pigments had recently become available, which the Impressionists put to good use, juxtaposing vivid colors in ways that were startling to audiences at the time. Even shadows, it turned out, didn’t have to be just black or brown or gray... The arrival of photography had also revealed new ways of framing images, suggesting the possibility of unbalanced, snapshot-like compositions, long before cameras would reach snapshot size and speed.

Some have theorized that now that photography could capture reality so well, painting was then freed from the shackles of realism and could do what paint does best, which is being colorful and tactile, and you know, painty. This new kind of art also involved more women and represented them in new ways. Berthe Morisot participated in all but one of the Impressionist exhibitions, and gave us remarkable views into the domestic sphere and lives of well-to-do women. Mary Cassatt joined the ranks as well, and became known for depicting women and children as well as her own family. Women of a variety of classes were subjects for the Impressionists, and not just nude and lying on a bed anymore, but shown doing the things they actually do, in the home as well as out in the world, enjoying. Paris’s nightlife, and also being it. A population boom following the Franco-Prussian war had brought about a new mixing of genders and social classes, which we see unfolding in Impressionist depictions of street life, cafe culture, and various forms of entertainment. The membership of this motley crew of artists fluctuated with each exhibition, including names you’ve definitely heard of as well as ones you probably haven’t. By their last exhibition in 1886, few of the artists were working in style you’d likely identify as “Impressionist.” Core members had evolved their own styles and were exhibiting independently. And the artists we now consider Neo-Impressionist had arrived, like Georges Seurat and Paul. Signac, who were interested in the more scientific aspects of color and how our eyes process it...

Impressionism was one of the first of a string of avant-garde art movements, each rejecting tradition and embracing the modern, promoting new ideas about what art could be and what it could do. Whether or not you’re familiar with the succession of “isms” that followed, you already know the narrative: students learn from their teachers, but then repudiate their lessons and push on to forge their own paths. Novel methods over time lose their ability to shock, new ideas replace old, and the cycle continues. And now it’s gotten ever faster. An 1874 review of the first Impressionist exhibition posed the question, “Is the absence of rules a good thing? Only the future will enlighten us…” And enlighten us it has, demonstrating the breadth of what the pursuit of singular vision can bring forth.

But the best case for Impressionism is the art itself. In a museum filled with the dark and dramatic art that preceded it, and the often confounding art that follows, Impressionism is really… pleasant. It’s not violent or distressing or sentimental or moralistic. It’s recognizable subject matter rendered in an interesting but not overtly challenging - by contemporary standards - kind of way. It’s an optical delight, giving us windows into a fascinating historical moment, created by supremely talented artists who pushed art in new directions to better represent that moment and their own view of it. And that is enough.

Sarah Urist Green

The  Case for Impressionism

[gryffonweald]

My friend looks like the sun, so I was inspired

[catastrophic-success]

Help me get a dog?

I recently got a job and I’m not making enough money yet to pay for my apartments pet expenses except for their pet rent.

I really want to get a dog so very much and I’m taking donations and/or commissions at a very discounted rate!

Fandoms

My Little Pony

Homestuck

Undertale/Deltarune (and AUs!)

Harry Potter

Bendy and the Ink Machine

Five Nights at Freddy’s (Games and Books)

Steven Universe

Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra

Kingdom Hearts

And lots of others.

Skills I Lack:

Mecha, I can try but I’ve never done it before.

NSFW Guidelines.

No rape or gore.

No scat, watersports, or other bodily wastes.

No underage. Aged-up characters are fine, though.

The following fetishes are no: Inflation/Expansion, Transformation, and ABDD/DDlg/DDlb or anything to do with baby fetishes.

All other kinks, like feet and the like are fine.

And obviously this stuff won’t be posted on tumblr due to their new guidelines.

Other Services?

I can also do voice acting commissions, doll customs, and writing commissions. Same NSFW rules apply.

Voices I can do range from high pitched and sweet to low and gruff. I know you undertale nerds love a good voice acting thing (I know I do) and I can do voices for just about every adult female character and all the children characters too. Maybe Flowey if I try real hard.

I could probably voice Alice Angel for Bendy fans?

Really just ask.

If there’s something you’d like but aren’t sure about, just ask! My inbox is always open.

Check the read more for my art examples and donation related things!

Thank you!

I do pony art in my style and show style.

Character fashion concepts.

Character portraits.

Posters.

Icons

Desktop backgrounds.

Traditional art. Both stylized.

And Reaslistic

Reference sheets.

Comic pages.

Pixel Art.

And so much more.

If you’d like to donate instead, you can support me on Patreon, Ko-Fi, and paypal.

Patreon

Ko-Fi

Paypal: ladylexisthegreat@gmail.com

Again, thank you!

[abandonedthisacclol]

How did you find your artstyle? Are you still experimenting?

to be honest, i'm still in the process of trying to find mine, which im getting closer, as for how, i guess you'd pick a kind of style you'd like. For example, would you want it to be more cartoony, more reaslistic, more on the anime side, minimalist, complex, like what kind of mood or vibe you want you art to convey. it's this and also finding a way to draw that you're most comfortable with, though you can always stray away and try something new.

[notachair]

Sorry, I’m hijacking 😅 No expert but just some things that have helped me/I remember from art school.

First and foremost I’d say you should find something you want to draw. It’s supposed to be enjoyable! Maybe there’s a character that got you inspired, try copy that (you do learn things from copying) to the best of your ability. And I agree, more cartoony/animated characters are easier to start with (at least to copy cause I struggle with stylized styles...). Even if you think it’s bad, it’s practice, so just keep going 💪

1. References, allllll those references! Make use of them! Check out google, Pinterest (can be really good for references) and other places. Unsplash is one of those sites where you can download pictures for free. You can also make your own references as mentioned.

2. Research/art study, try and read up on colour theory, composition and other sorts. Like what does the type of format you choose do to the full picture? How can you make the illusion of perspective? You can also carefully watch how an artist you like draw/paint something step by step. Maybe they’ve got a different technique at one step that you didn’t know of yourself? Also look at general arts and study how they’ve used colour and pencil strokes, and how it all factor in on the full composition.

This includes figuring out what art medium works on what paper/canvas, cause as Ikol (sorry I don’t know what to call you ;-;) says, it really can make a difference! Like with markers? Some markers bleed onto the paper depending on what paper and marker you use. There are also tools which make smudging easier depending on your medium.

3. Studies, do “studies” of the things you want to improve on. You find noses hard? Make a collection of pics of noses from different angles (and different lighting possibly), and strip them down to basic forms and add to them (if you want to try more reaslistic or semi realistic). See how the different components interact with each other and how it can change from nose to nose. I feel like it can be good to have three base shades, base, highlight and shade (you really can make a good illusion of shape just by using highlights and shading).

You also should make practice patches for the medium you have first. Like with markers? See what difference different pressures make? How easy it is to make clean lines. How to blend and so on.

Generally, a tip is to draw lightly until you find the exact line/shape you want and draw harder onto that. Unless you’re one who’s just naturally talented and get each line perfect. Practice with pens seems to be good practice, cause you can’t erase anything and you’ll start put more consideration into each line that you make. There are different practices like, quick sketching, where you give yourself 30sec, 1 min, 3 min to draw something. Also silhouette drawing. Aaaaand much more

Good luck arting ✨💪 🎨 and have fun with it!

What kind of fancy markers did you buy? Can we see? My boyfriend bought me some pretty cool pastel markers for our anniversary! Now I just need to learn how to use them, it's been years since I last drew with any traditional means... Any advise for beginners?

I ordered a set of these!

My country is still in lockdown so I had to get them online. They'll be here in a few days.

My advise would probably be to use as many references as you can find. I sometimes pose for a drawing myself so I get the anatomy (and the hands lmao) right. For me it was easier starting with more cartoony styles (and drawing animated characters) to get a feel for it before moving on to finding my own style and drawing more realistic proportions.

Good paper and a good eraser can also go a long way! Nothing more frustrating than not being able to get one part of an otherwise great drawing right and tearing your paper while erasing 😭

And then it's just practice, practice, practice (I FILLED my school notes with doodles lmao. If I saved those I would probably be able to show you a few thousand Lokis and Zukos 😂)

[sadie-draws]

Palm Siberia from Hunter x Hunter