"Realistic Art" doesn’t mean Good Art

Art criticism vacillates between two extremes: that art is only good insofar as it is realistic, meaning faithful to the material reality being represented, or that art is only good insofar as it is shocking and unrecognizable from anything in our world. Both of these ideas are incorrect. The world does not consist of only the material so a mere material representation that neglects the spiritual would produce a mediocre, albeit labour-intensive, work. Similarly a work that is made for its own sake: to shock and to disorient, is not about anything at all. It points to nothing but itself and thus is an onanistic exercise in elevating the artist’s ego rather than creating anything meaningful or interesting about the world in which it resides.

Real art exists in conversation with the world. It consistently reinvigorates our ideas about humanity and nature, like a calibrating ground that reminds us of higher things, when we are too caught up in the daily functions of survival to look up from the grimy ground we have been treading.

Today’s essay is a case study that illustrates just this effect with two paintings depicting the same event: The Pardon in Brittany. It is a religious custom in Brittany, Northern France that includes a mass followed by a procession around the church. Many artists were fascinated by the mysticism of the centuries old spectacle that seemed to persist in the modern day world. During the procession, it seemed as though the world had returned to its medieval past.