Talk:Realism (arts)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Realism (arts) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Darwin's influence

"The realists were influenced by Charles Darwin's discoveries in The Origin of Species."

How were they influenced by Darwin? >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might surprise you to know that Adam Bede by George Eliot, was published in 1859, the same date of publication as the origin of the species! Influence--or zeitgeist? User:Gregor Millen

Neither influence nor zeitgeist - coincidence. If the Origin of Species was published in the same year as Adam Bede, then the Origin of Species can hardly have been an influence on Adam Bede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.93.134 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Origin of Species didn't just pop up out of nowhere in 1859. Similarities between works published in the same year are bound to come from shared intellectual and cultural environment at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

--Jahsonic 09:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objective Reality

I'm confused as to what this article means by "objective" reality when, in fact, the realists held heavy ties to the naturalists (who believe in an extremely subjective construction of reality: that Man is shaped and conditioned by his/her surroundings). This article even talks about their relationship to Darwin...

"that man is shaped and conditioned by his/her surroundings" - This IS Darwin. Survival and evolution of species is wholly determined by environment. Naturalist literature applies this to human beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mme X"

Is this really a good example of 'realist' painting? I know Sargent was known as the 'van Dyck' of the 19th century but surely a better example can be found from his work? --Dalisback1 (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realism

The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Really Realism (art movement) perhaps needs its own article, and at the least a decent text account here, but in the meantime, as references to "realism" etc in art rarely mean Realism, we should not have a big gallery at the top without any explanatory text under any circumstances, and especially here. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The artice was always about the Realism movement - until you decided to add Naturalism. Make an article about Naturalism - and leave the Realism movement alone!..Modernist (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title is much too general to be just about Courbet and pals. There's no clear distinction that can be made between "realist" and "naturalist" as general terms, and often the capitalized terms also mean the same thing, hence both are covered here. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text is being added, by the way...Modernist (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait! Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the old arrangement until discussion has finished. I'll let you get on adding text before changing it back, but please don't revert again. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own this, please refrain from making any further reverts...Modernist (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seek consensus before reverting this...Modernist (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Realist movement should open the article -

Agree - Modernist (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Realist movement should not open the article -

Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It is certainly not true that "The artice was always about the Realism movement". Note the title of the article, and look at the article before Modernist or I started any changes on February 16th. The subject is realism in all the arts, with sections on visual art, literature, theatre, cinema etc. It begins "Realism in the visual arts and literature is the general attempt to depict subjects as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation and "in accordance with secular, empirical rules."[1] As such, the approach inherently implies a belief that such reality is ontologically independent of man's conceptual schemes, linguistic practices and beliefs, and thus can be known (or knowable) to the artist, who can in turn represent this 'reality' faithfully. As Ian Watt states, modern realism "begins from the position that truth can be discovered by the individual through the senses" and as such "it has its origins in Descartes and Locke, and received its first full formulation by Thomas Reid in the middle of the eighteenth century."[2]" (now mostly trimmed as just inaccurate) before a paragraph (much as now) on Courbet etc. Capitalised Realism was as much a movement in other arts as painting, but in all cases most uses of the term "realism" do not concern the specific 19th century movement. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the earlier stages of this article - which was a rough and rudimentary outline - the Courbet image in the lede always and immediately made the connection to the mid-19th century Realist movement, a picture like that is worth at least 1000 words...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, your edit just now is a sensible solution - I'm fine with that. Good idea. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on your part too...Modernist (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realist movement

I note the discussion above. Whatever this article was originally about, the sections on the Realist Movement don't seem to fit well with the rest of the article. I think they should be moved to a separate article and a summary left here. This article should then focus on a general discussion of realism vs. illusionism. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's two topics here and they don't belong together. Bhny (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun the work. See Realism (art movement). Not sure how much to leave in this article. Bhny (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a lot of work but I think we have two focussed articles now. Bhny (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Update

I have added some information to the Opera (Verismo) section including their citations. Particularly, I would like to highlight the addition of Verdi as one of the originators of this new style as well as the influence of Flaubert. If you have questions about the changes, please send me a message. Also, feel free to improve it. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dva bašibozuka ispred kapije - Paja Jovanović.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential refs

Honour/Fleming HofA Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article essentially just about 1840+ European Realism?

This article is pretty much an article about the European Realism movement, from about the 1840's. There are a few mentions of pre-1840 European realism, but even that doesn't go any further back, than to the late 1500's ...and there is not even the faintest hint, of any mention of anything outside of Western Europe. Art that aimed to be realistic, goes back far before the 1500's, and was never something exclusive to Western Europe! 155.4.221.27 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You overstate the concentration in the article. Do you mean the 15th century, rather than "1500s"? The meanings and usage of the various terms are complicated, but they have I think always been strongest in the "Western tradition", and so treated in WP:RS. What in particular do you think should be added? Japan perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages for Realism and Naturalism

Why is there only one page for both Realism and Naturalism if both topics, as purported in the introductory paragraph, are distinct from one another? There should be a separate page for Naturalism. NipponGinko (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are very hard to disentangle, especially as different languages and art forms treat the two terms differently. We have Realism (art movement), Naturalism (literature) and Naturalism (theatre) (the last two not really English terms), as well as Verismo etc. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]