Scary

There is a fine line between realism and surrealism. Sometimes, people have the tendency to argue whether or not a piece is either real or surreal. In rare instances, the piece can also be determined as both. In the deviantart artist pinkertonFX's "Scary," the composition is determined as almost surreal through form, colour, and unity.

The art has a great sense of unity to it. The piece lacks texture, but in return supplies the viewer with an overall similar, yet not boring, tone. The entire piece piece has a look of old to it, as if an archaic scroll was where this piece was conjured, and so perhaps this ancient haze is another contribution to the piece's unity.

A secondary element this piece holds is colour. The artist used a very evident use of warm colours, which dominate the piece; orange and brown are the primary colours seen, even if they are manipulated into separate shades and tints. Although this also unifies the piece, it can also be so that these colours were used to assist the aged look that the artist was going for. In addition, this colour choice might have been applied to adhere to a morbid theme [it is a skull, after all].

Lastly, the form of this piece is crucial. The artist did not create a foreground nor a background to complement their composition, but rather they relied heavily on form and space to substitute. The skull and shirt are very well indicated that they are of three dimensions, whereas the background, although containing value, is not.

This piece is difficult to place in the surreal category, yet it does not quite apply to realism either. Some might argue that it is surrealism for it is a skull with a body and ears. Or, they might ponder that is is realism, for nothing indicates that this open-skulled figure is alive. Nonetheless, this piece displays a cunning mastery of colour manipulation, as well as refined skill with unification and the use of form with space.

Response to Leo Tolstoy's "What is Art?"

For some, art is not a concept of realistic action; it is a waste of time and energy. This harsh definition of art applied quite heavily to a man known as Leo Tolstoy. He believed that the theatre was a shallow waste of purpose and that there was other word that could have been done. In Leo Tolstoy’s prompt about art, he identifies numerous categories of art expression and theatre, but then them as congruently extinct.
Tolstoy states, in the sake of art, that “not only is enormous labor spent on this activity, but in it, as in war, the lives of very men are sacrificed” [Tolstoy]. In this he means to state that there are people who are utterly and unfathomably dedicated and devoted to the idea of art and theatre. Alternatively, he goes on to say that there are only five forms of art; the art of the five senses. Tolstoy does not believe that art holds any aesthetic value, rather it is a great hindrance to mankind’s success.
Time and time again, Tolstoy expresses his belief that art is a waste of mankind’s usefulness; it is thoroughly expressed that he is not a believer of art. He is open about expressing that he finds art to be wasteful and opaque. But one must look at the direction of opinion before striking down his character; Tolstoy grew up in a harsh time for Russia, and in that sense there was a great demand for work force. In this sense, Tolstoy’s criticism could be condoned by even the greatest art fanatic.