Art is about showing you something you didn't see before. The way a photo is framed, what your attention is drawn to. The way you paint something—what do you distort, enhance, convey? Realism isn't the point. What you SHOW is the point, and that can be anything not strictly real. https://twitter.com/margaritaevna95/status/1291742307440566272

Impressionism, specifically, is explicitly NOT about realism as was practiced in the salon art that came before. Instead of manufactured precision, the impressionists went out to find what impressed them about the world, finding the most important highlight, painting that.

Think of Monet going out to paint a hundred sunsets, capturing an essence in the simplest brushstrokes. The value of the impressionist wasn't in how accurately they could convey detail, but how they could distill the essence of their impressions on canvas.

That makes the perception of the individual artist have a huge impact on style, and as a result, perhaps that style is not for everyone. Certainly you don't need to like Van Gogh. Maybe it just doesn't resonate with you. But to critique him on realism means you missed the point.

It means you judge him by irrelevant criteria and haven't given him a chance. Look again at those two paintings. Both depict a classic French alleyway. The first is very warm in tone and feels exactly like such an alleyway as you would always picture if you thought of one.

It feels to me like a stereotype. My perception of a cozy French alley remains exactly as it was and I see the world in no new light.

The Van Gogh one uses a lot more cool tones. There's more tonal contrast. One thing I enjoy about Van Gogh is his ability to add an eeriness.

A feeling of unrest, of turbulence, even in seemingly warm and nice places. A reflection of his psyche, perhaps, but not one that would have been at all successful if it didn't resonate with many. I see something I didn't see before after looking at this painting.

Something that feels true and real. That's the power of a good painting. It DOES something to you. It can challenge you, make you readjust. And again, no need to like it. There's art that does a lot to people that leaves me entirely indifferent. And the other way around.

But if you critique something, you will come across as a lot fairer if you respect what the point of the piece of art is. If you look at that Van Gogh above and you think its point is to be realistic, you just haven't been looking. And that is why your criticism is poor.

Anyway, writing about art, huh? I do that sometimes. Yesterday's blog is coincidentally relevant to the thrust behind this thread. It's a quick read. https://kirstendewolf.wordpress.com/2020/08/31/mind-your-audience-but-stay-true-to-yourself/