Which way do you swing?

Here's a pendulum.

Is there a portion of this arc between these two extremes where you like the art pendulum to swing?

I’m only applying this to representational art by the way.

At one end, the pendulum would swing to hyper realism.
Perfect in every detail.

At the other end it would find a caricature of exaggerations so extreme that recognizing anything would be a bit of a challenge. But it’s there if you look hard enough, or know what you’re looking for.

Hyper realism is too far off in one direction for me.
It loses believability because it’s so realistic, if it isn’t actually moving, something seems terribly wrong. It looks lifeless and frozen in time.

Exaggerations that almost become completely abstract don’t do it for me either. If there's anything worth looking at, it's lost on me.

Growing up I would find Michelangelo books and Bugs Bunny cartoons equally engrossing.
Imagine my excitement to learn that Leonardo made cartoons!
When I got to see some, I was quite disappointed.
Not what I had in mind at all!

What Michelangelo and Chuck Jones had in common was a keen observance of natural truth, and just the right amount of exaggeration to breathe vibrant life into their very different handiwork.

Of course Chuck Jones needed to push the pendulum further towards the exaggeration end of the spectrum to achieve his goals, but even so his work always remained in some sense believable.

So I suppose for me, when the pendulum leaves the realm of believability (even for Bugs Bunny!) it also leaves me cold.

I find art always needs some emphasis or slight exaggeration to feel life-like.
For my tastes, the optimal amount depends on the medium.

And how far you go determines your personal taste and style.

Or vice-versa.

That's all folks!

click these links to visit my website... SteveWorthingtonArt.com - Sculpture that loves you back
or my Etsy store, CritterVille

My favorite art criticism is simply 'wow'.

Any art with a great sense of style, character and accuracy gets my vote every time.

Drape that over a compelling idea and you’ve really got a winner.

I prefer naturalism, but not for its own sake. For me it has to be done well.

The good stuff in any genre is always harder to find (but easy to spot when you find it).

Since I have a great respect for craftsmanship in the arts I am more drawn to work that is stylishly and expertly executed, with great character and flair, and with naturalism as its starting point.

The work can have departed quite wildly in the final incarnation, but I like it better when the initial impulse to create it was inspired by a natural emotion or something else in nature I can relate to.

I usually prefer that to visual work which is attempting to communicate some intellectual notion or mental concept.

For the most part I think words are better at doing that.

Like philosophy for instance.

Which might explain why a critic’s interpretation of some art seems more important than the art itself. When the words speak, but the art doesn’t. And art that says nothing gives the critic more freedom to say what’s on his mind.

A worthy idea for a piece of art could be as simple as communicating an animal or person's character or personality. Of course it could be a good deal more complicated too.

I love it when a piece of art stops me in my tracks with a sense of awe and wonder.

When it seems obvious the artist was inspired, but also skillful enough to pull it off.

That's why my favorite art criticism is simply ‘wow’.