Back in the day, there was no “photography”—so the skill of creating realistic art was highly regarded and required a very specific skill set. In the modern art era, technology is different and photography is one of many established art forms serving a similar purpose that realistic art served in the past. So, some artists look for different ways to be creative. This leads to the crafting of abstract art that attempts to elicit emotion in different ways than realistic art does. In my mind, comparing two works of art from these different art eras and making a judgment about one being “better” than the other due to the skill involved in creating the art is not fair and very short-sighted.
I highly respect the skill set required to create photorealistic art—so please don’t misinterpret what I am saying here. All I am saying is that making a comparison of the two techniques and furthering the misconception that one has more merit than the other is myopic and doesn’t really help people appreciate art history properly. Instead, it just feels like a cheap way to berate a disliked art style.
