[actually_a_dog]

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.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[jevoten]

Take your favorite digital camera, and take a picture the likes of https://www.wikiart.org/en/zdzislaw-beksinski/untitled-1976-... or https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Caspar_D...

[actually_a_dog]

Those are not examples of photorealism.

[jevoten]

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.

For example, I have never seen a photo that looks like https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-temple-of-dender...

And is a random photo taken by a tourist in Egypt as "good" as that painting? It's more photorealistic, after all!

[actually_a_dog]

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.

[jevoten]

"Abstracts of all sort have room for me in them; photorealism doesn't." and the rest of your post heavily implied that the only options are abstract art or photorealism, and doesn't even mention the many different traditional styles. But you are correct that you never say so explicitly.

[actually_a_dog]

It's a forum comment, not an art history dissertation. I chose photorealism as it contrasts very explicitly with abstract styles, and, because I don't care for it. There's no need to read anything more into it.