What's the Difference Between Realism & Naturalism? | ARTiculations
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ธ.ค. 2024
- Discuss this video in Discord: / discord
Betty explains the difference between the art movement realism and the art style naturalism. #withcaptions
If you'd like to help support ARTiculations - feel free to leave something in the tip jar: ko-fi.com/arti...
Please subscribe to ARTiculations to stay up to date on future episodes!
www.articulatio...
You can also follow me on:
Instagram: / articulationsv
Twitter: / articulationsv
Facebook: / articulationsv
Sources & Additional Reading:
www.artmovement...
www.metmuseum.o...
www.arthistoryr...
www.visual-arts...
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/HaMS/
Hi everyone I've made a Discord for further discussions: discord.gg/4DWvahY94U. I'm also more likely to respond there as TH-cam comments aren't always the most ideal places for conversation. Thank you!
OK, Speaking as a writer, an English professor and a person who is more than an art enthusiast but less than an art expert, I need to tell you how well this video is done. First, you give clear definitions of two terms that are often misunderstood. I still have to look them up the terms sometimes because I get confused. Second, you help our understanding by giving insight into what each term is not, contrasting both terms with their appropriate opposites. That was very clever. Third, you offer several well chosen examples that help visualize the ideas you're trying to explain. Finally, you speak clearly, articulately and professionally, so that no one is left asking, "What did she say?" or saying, "I didn't understand what she just said," or complaining, "She keeps mumbling!" 10/10 on elocution. I don't know what level of education you have, or what level of art you teach, but in my own art writings and in my English classes, I will be using this video to exemplify and/or explain what people need to know. Thank you.
Aww thank you so much for this lovely comment. I’m so flattered. I don’t actually teach professionally and my education is applied design so nothing academic at all haha. So to get such a compliment like this is really amazing. Thanks again for your feedback and hope your students find this video helpful too!
@Charles Anderson Thank you for your excellent humour!
Agreed
this was actually quite interesting! i used to always confuse realism with naturalism's definition.. but now it makes a lot more sense ahah. keep making videos!
Haha glad I could clear that up! Thank you so much for your support!
wow Ive been a figurative painter for 38 plus years and I gotta say you did a great job .
Super helpful, I'm doing summer hw for Ap euro and those 3 words keep popping up saying like such paintings were focused primarily on so and so but change to be more of that during that time period. This video is just really helpful over ty.
I loved this video so much! I love the artworks you talked about, some of which are my personal favorite. This gave me a flash back of my elementary school years when from when we had an art historian visit our school each month. She would talk about famous artworks and artists like the ones you showed in the video, too. Those were my favorite times! I will never forget them! I remember some presentations from when I was 7 years old learning about French artwork. It was so great.
Simply, you're the best one !! So talented :)
Betty, this is a very helpful video, and I congratulate you for this. Please ask the captions artist to correct the misspellings in the captions: principles, not principals, (1:00) and naturalism not natualism (1:23)
Thanks for the video. I came across this researching literary naturalism. In literature naturalism is defined not by how the author depicts the natural environment, trees, the ocean and so forth, but is the idea that characters are defined by their genetics and culture. The French novelist Zola embodies literary naturalism. In his novels poor people can never rise out of their poverty, if a character's father is mad than that character is mad. It's all very depressing and goes hand in hand with the literary sub-genre called depressive realism, which is practiced by authors today like Michel Houellebecq and David Szalay. Anyway, this is what brought me to your channel. It was good to see how these terms are used in the fine arts. Keep it up :)
wow! this is amazing stuff! Im so glad i met you at vidcon ^.^
Your video is more realistic than idealistic , more naturalistic than romantic !
Thanks for the hyper explicit explanation !
Please make more !
MrTAYA87 Haha thank you. And will do! :)
Thank you so much 😍😍😍😍 i cant find these thorough explaination in google. 😅😅 lav u 😘
Amazing video! Using it in my art class. Thank you for sharing!!!
Thanks for clearing my confusion....nice examples and good expression... thanks
Got an assignment on realism and this helped understand it a lot! Thanks!!!
Thank you for making this. People's use of "realism" as a description for any representational art has always bugged me, particularly in the case of the "atelier" art schools who use the ridiculous term "classical realism", Classicism and Realism being completely different art movements. ( And, just in case you can still edit the video, you might want to check the spelling of "naturalism" at 1:20.)
Wow, this is really well done! Thanks for the video 😁
Thanks. This was really helpful and to the point.
thanks mam,it cleared my all doubts about realism and naturalism.
I’m so glad I found you. You’re so real!
Aww thank you 🥰 that’s very nice! Glad you are enjoying the videos.
Thanks for you kindness and clear explanation of the difference between Naturalism and Realism.
I could not understand the difference meaning when I was having a listening test on TOEFL, however, now I precisely understand the difference.
Thanks a lot :)
Love this, these definitions really helped me articulate and understand the style of the FX show Atlanta. Naturalism but definitely not realism- surrealism. Thanks!
Thanks u explained it so well....u r s great teacher
On our old continent, and specially at uni, we're used to say mimetism to speak about "realistic graphical representation" and not naturalism because this one is also a literary and painting movement in the same way as realism.
Superb concept explanation 👍🏼
Thank you for this video! I always enjoy learning new things about art! :) you did a great job explaining the two ^^
JustaStrawberryMonster Thank you! This topic always comes up on my gallery tours and I'm glad I finally developed a concise way to explain it.
Loved the way you explain, nice job.
Very helpful video. Will definitely use it for reference. Kenya.
oh my gosh thank you for doing these! so awesome!
Excellent narration
Thank you so much. You have explained it very well.
Could you please tell me is there any difference between 'realism' and 'representation'?
I can't thank you enough for sharing your knowledge with us!
Thank you! I find your explanation so substantial and easily understandable. With your example, was that a painting that is both "stylized" and "abstract"? Or the two concepts cant be mixed?
Wonderful video. Please make more.
david thompson Thanks so much!
Realism: Apple Harvest by Camille Pissarro, Naturalism: The Death of Queen Sophie Amalie by Kristian Zahrtmann?
Super helpful. Thanks for making this video :)
Can you please make a video on realism vs naturalism in literature context or any reference to read ??
Hi, could you do a video explaining humanism?
thanks a bunch, this is enlightening me so damn well
I've only heard of realism in writing craft and haven't ever thought of it in other forms of art. A neat new perspective!
I'm not doing the hw tho :P
Aren’t you used to having homework? Just add this in with the rest 😝
Just a request! Could you please do a video about appropriation in art, and metamorphosis in art?
do you have any opinions on Henrik Ibsen's - A Doll's House? I feel as though it is both.
Not the right place to ask, but how do these distinctions apply to acting? I've heard of realism and naturalism as being 2 separate styles of acting; in painting, I can see the distinction, but I can't see it for acting.
Thank you for the excellent explanation:)
Can you please elaborate, how can it be applied on literature?
A pet peeve of mine is when someone describes a work as “photorealistic” simply because, in the immortal words of Homer Simpson, “Your paintings look like the things they look like.”. Well-executed figurative art is NOT photo-realism! I actually called out an art critic on this the other day, and this is a person with Pulitzer to their name! Photo-realism is a style, but it’s more than just realistic looking paintings.
great book from 1980, Realism Photorealism by John Arthur
Hello! what doyou have to say about acting realistically? what is it all about?
Really well done. very useful
Nice Channel! I always be attracted by realism until know the differences since to be pretty close, do you categories Instagram as a digital naturalism-realism?
What do you think about Andy Goldsworthy?
Can surrealistic works of art be considered naturalistic and realistic at the same time? Like if the visual elements are painted in a naturalistic style but are juxtaposed against other imagery which overall looks surreal but actually depics real life experience figuratively.
In general I'd say probably no? it's really hard for a work to be surreal and realistic at the same time. Because the definition of surrealism is that it's unreal - or a distortion of reality. While the whole point of realism is that it's very true to reality. But of course, we would have to look at the actual work to determine. Maybe a work can be ironic and depict a real and surreal situation at the same time?
ARTiculations Thank you for your reply! What if a work depicts the reality of life but uses surrealistic visual language to express that reality. Like using symbols and motifs. What i am saying is that the work itself is not based on surrealism but draws elements from it to represent a reality. I am talking about Debraj Goswami's works. He is an Indian artist. And i am writing an essay on his works.
Ah I see. I think there is a difference between "depicting realities of life literally" and "depicting the realities of life symbolically." Debraj Goswami's works seem to be mostly symbolic - he's using surreal and metaphorically imagery to express ideas. So his work is technically neither realism, or naturalism. But doesn't mean his ideas are not real, or not representations of realities. It's just the visual language he uses happens to be not literally real.
ARTiculations Thank you so much for your reply!!! You're amazing!! And soooo knowledgeable!! And you reply really quickly! Thanks again!! :)
Can this also be applied to Naturalism and Realism in literature?
+Michie0821 Hmm good questions. I believe this can be similarly applied to literature - but my understanding of literary movements is limited so I am not entirely sure.
I've always viewed art through a matrix. Specifically, a quadrant based on x-y, though I'm now beginning to think the z-axis may be useful. X-axis is "Real to Imagined Subject Matter" while the Y-axis was "Naturalized to Abstracted Expression Means". It's always just seemed to me that artists always do one of the following (and sometimes a hybrid thereof): 1) Make abstact (or impressionistic) a real scene or thing(s) --- thus the work is mostly about their internal filter/paradigm; 2) Make naturalistic an imagined/fantasy/myth into tableau, person(s), and/or thing(s) so as to drive home the emotional/philosophical impacts upon a pragmatic viewership; 3) naturalistically render a real subject with primary intent of celebration/documentation; and 4) fully abstract (e.g. Pollack, Rothko) expressions of inner perspectives with little to no reference to object, spatial and temporal references (all naturalizing aspects).... though I'd release "color" from reality. Of course, one could argue that symbolism, once adopted as a known communication means, is a "real" thing... as language (these very words). So, whether gibberish or sensible, a work done in alpha-numerics could either be #1 or #4 depending on whether or not the subject matter exists as real (other-discoverable phenomena) outside of the artist.
Your caption shows the date for the Rubens as 1830s. Guess that's a typo for 1630s - that's Real Life for you! But a very helpful video.
Would you consider the 'Cottingley Fairies' photographs to be realistic or naturalistic? I'm more inclined to think they are naturalistic but not realistic (because of the supernatural aspect of the fairies haha) as they look very real and closely resemble the natural world
Loved the video by the way :)
Thanks Stephanie. Great example. Yes I would consider the Cottingley Fairies "naturalistic" since the photos are not "real". Although apparently some people thought they were real fairies haha. But keep in mind realism is more so about "realistic narratives." So it's not just whether a picture is real or fake. For instance art about farm workers or industrial revolution are not just about the still images - but also about the narratives and stories behind those images, and often these narratives can be political.
The funny thing about Courbet is that he used naturalism as a tool against Realism. The second painting shown in the video is Courbet meeting his patron on a mountain top. Courbet put himself in the light to define his shadow, his feet grounded firmly onto the soil he painted, while his patron's party is obscured by the shadow of what seems to be a tree, yet the figures of the party are not obscured by this shadow. In addition, by analyzing the position of the Sun by Courbet's shadow, at least the patron's shadow should also be visible at the surface of the mountain, yet is completely absent. Add this to the fact that they greet Courbet, portraying himself as some kind of lord they worship, only goes to show how highly he thought of himself and the position of the artist compared to those who paid the artist to create what was at that moment still commonly referred to as "Salon painting", ie bourgeois painting. With these paintings we could make a point that not Manet, but Courbet was in fact the first modern artist who defied bourgeois culture and inspired the following generation of painters who would become famous as the Impressionists, along with Manet.
I should add this only counts for French culture. In Dutch culture painting was already democratized by that time and people would often own paintings as proven by paintings made during the times of Vermeer. Nonetheless, the influence French Modernist painting had on Europe cannot be underestimated.
very helpful. thank you
Great Post, thank you!
Would Guernica count as Realism but not Naturalism?
Yes I would agree with that! =)
For those looking for these concepts within a philosophical framework youre on the wrong place. The discussion here is more on the dimension of art movements.
Wait I just got homework from a youtube video?
Nature can be wonderful yes we treated fair. It’s right before your eyes serious
Rubens did not paint “Venus and Adonis” in the 1830’s. He died in 1640 ! It was painted in 1635.
Thank you!
Mmm I do love me some Courbet! Though, we can also argue that he was interested in other points and not just straight depictions of scenes (he was a very proud man!)
Naked curvy ladies just hanging out in the park! hahah So funny :)
Little Art Talks Courbet of course was also interested in curvy naked ladies :P
Otto Dix is a good exemple of both representations in my opinion, www.wikiart.org/en/search/OTTO%20DIX/1#close
Very cool video, I wish it was longer, nice job!
Great example! I was actually thinking about Otto Dix when I was making the video. And thanks :) I wasn't entirely sure if people were okay with sitting through long videos so I try to keep them around 4-5 minutes. But some future topics I wanna do definitely need to be longer in order to be explained thoroughly. Look out for those!
so is this video an example of realism and/or naturalism?
great vid
I understood thank you.
v helpful thank you
The Potato Eaters come to mind inmediately when you talk about realism without naturalism www.bartongalleries.com/images/homepage-images/the-potato-eaters-vincent-van-gogh-big.JPG
And The Lovers by Magritte strikes me as naturalistic (in a way) while not realistic (also, in a way) artsmarket2000.com/Ven-Photos/act-items/1807.jpg
Guille Puerto Fantastic choices! I actually saw the big Magritte show in Chicago a few months ago. Magritte is a great example of someone who often painted in almost photorealistic ways but at the same time illustrating strange and unreal scenes. Hence why he is called a surrealist. I may do an episode on surrealism one day :) Thanks for watching Guille and thanks for responding!
Every time I post "Naturalism" people think I'm some kind of nudist beach painter.
Thanq mammm lv u
I avoid the terms. Figurative covers enough ground.
Period
Hwa Sa is that you?????
y u so pretty
Botticelli is nowhere near neoclassical. Botticelli is a Renaissance artist. Fact check!
+csabitt Yes you are totally right. I meant to say "classical" and it is even in my script to say that lol but I said neoclassical stupidly and didn't notice until I uploaded. Thanks for pointing it out.
Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!
skrubs
It is not magic when your Creator always was. *It is magic when matter makes itself exist and programs itself to be your father and mother.* That's 100% magic and 100% not true.
Naturalism is a 100% baseless belief in magic. It's such an absurd weird belief. It's the definition of cognitive dissonance.
Is this a response to a video on art term definitions?
@@gavinreid5387 My bad. 😁
your tied into an emotional draw where you join a party to side with. its that simple. naturalism isn't rational its just a convenient lie. what you feel for naturalism to be rational is a give in, to a mass belief system and in faviour of naturalism and thinking that supports it. its the siding a party fallacy. you see the same problem rises for every religon as well. if your just trained enough in a religious mass belief system, you will think naturalism is complelty irrational. you have to be part of the hype of naturalism to feel its rational. i have tons of arguments to shatter naturalism as nothing but wishful thinking and illusory superiority. its a fail trap. nothing creates itself by itself. it always have someone or somthing that created it. nothing create itself no matter how much time. a brick walll that created itself by rock rubbing randomly in a river for 20 million years just stone by stone overlap by pure rubbing for that time into a perfect looking tile pattern brick wall is the thinking of evolution. its irrational to beleive in naturalism. robots don't makes themselves either. they need a intelligent being to create them and care for them. so did we need for who created us. we can only go as far as races. no specie can cross over into the other. when you beleive in naturalism in your gut, you are so convinced into this naturalistic belief system that you take it for granted a truth as a absolute and will reject anyting that opposes it as irrational.
How does this relate to the video?
I tried a lot but could not understand the difference between them
Indian women
Thank you so much, these explanations were really helpful