I'm kind of the opposite. I've never been all that impressed by photorealistic painting, myself. Oh, sure, I get that a lot of time and technique goes into these things, and I can certainly appreciate them as a technical achievement. But, much like overclocking a processor to 6.3Ghz by using LN2 cooling, I don't really see the point of it, especially since a digital photo can capture the same thing far more easily and faithfully.
Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't. SFMOMA had a piece on display at one point that was simply a giant, all red canvas. It was quite an unassuming piece at first, situated at the very entry of the gallery exhibit it was featured in. But, the more I stood and just took it in, the more in awe of it I became. I could never imagine feeling that while standing in front of a painting that very well could have been a photo.
Correct. Rejecting modern/abstract art does not limit you to photorealism. In fact, even less stylized classical works rarely strived for mere photorealism, or were judged solely on that basis.
You're confused. I never said I rejected abstract art, and I never claimed that if you reject abstract art, you must love photorealism. Please reread what I wrote.
