50 Anos de Realismo: do fotorrealismo à realidade virtual, (50 years of Realism: from photo-realism to virtual reality) at Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil in Rio brings a survey of international photorealistic and hyperrealistic art to a Brazilian audience. Spanning from the 1960’s formal American photorealist movement, which produced paintings after photographs, to the more recent efforts in simulating new worlds in VR, the exhibition seeks to present multiple examples of practices and mediums that attempt to mimic reality as an artistic strategy. Despite the effort to produce likeness, very few of the works in the exhibition showed indication of a desire to fool the viewer into mistaking representation for referent, in trompe l’oeil fashion. By, for example, playing with scale, most artists seem to want the viewer to know what is before them is a painting or sculpture that just looks a lot like “the real thing”.
A conceptual issue across the exhibition, however, was just this: what is “the real thing”? This questioning is inherent to the humanities and the academic world. Both the problems of the ambiguity of the word “Realism” in the History of Art, and the issue of reality and how we perceive it in Philosophy are a source of a rich history of ideas and debates in academic writing. The fact that these questions were barely addressed was a missed opportunity of making a point that, if nothing else, sheds light on some key issues in the development of contemporary art.
It is possible to assume this avoidance of complexity was rooted in a desire to reduce academic jargon and create an exhibition that is accessible and enjoyable. But just starting from the principle that reality is simple and objective may lead to conceptual slippery slopes that create structural problems. For example, a pervasive assumption across the show was the idea that photography, in itself, represents reality perfectly, which implies that a painting after a photograph (a key component of many works in the show) is therefore a painting of reality. Many authors such as Susan Sontag and John Berger alert to the dangers of considering photographs as objective renderings of the world. We might fail to consider potential distortions caused by lens and camera, and perhaps more importantly, photographer’s choices such as framing and composition. Photography is not neutral or objective and the underlying assumption that it is, throughout the exhibition, curtails the show’s ability to enter a deeper level of discussion that would be very welcome in a world where we’re overwhelmed by photographic images.
It is undeniable however, that the exhibition is a success, apparently hitting record numbers in previous editions in São Paulo and Brasilia. The ability to create images and sculptures that are convincingly similar to people and things is indeed fascinating and I would be hypocritical if I said I didn’t indulge in it (I sent pictures to my mother). Some might say that getting more people in the museum is enough. While I agree that the discourse has to be democratic and that as art professionals we should put effort into being inclusive, I don’t think a bit of a challenge is bad. These questions such as the objectiveness of photography are out there, on the criticism of doctored photos for instagram, and in the rejection of fitness models in magazine covers. They are already part of the conversation in our society and don’t necessarily configure deep philosophical mores that would bore people out of visiting the museum. I think building bridges is always possible and a good show should attempt to do that whenever it can.