The Real, The Realistic and The Ridiculous

Realism and reality are two words that get tossed around a lot in the world of visual effects and gaming, and over the years we have seen how our perception of ‘realism’ has been refined and rethought yet reality has remained the same – or has it?

Alike our natural habit to narrate the world around us, we also have an obsessive fixation on replicating reality in art.  This is typically a Western obsession and in some ways hinders the film and gaming industry. With this notion of “what looks real?” people limit themselves to the confines of realism and focus on visuals rather than creativity. This is seen in the difference between media culture of the West and East. Japan’s wealth of creative and imaginative films and games prove the confinement of realism to be a liability. Nintendo’s Wii has been strongly criticized for its lack of westernised ‘next gen graphics’ however it has proven thoroughly enjoying and brought us many entertaining and imaginative games that stagger the ‘realistic-looking’ ones. Nikolai Chemishevsky wrote that “the first purpose of art is to reproduce reality”, I don’t believe this to be true. Some of the most ancient forms of artwork date back to Neanderthal cave paintings of stylized impressions of reality. Impressionist art is some of the most stunning – in my opinion. The ability to reproduce reality without the liabilities of ‘realism’ through stylized impressions that give the sense of reality is a notable achievement. The works of acclaimed director and animator Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli are truly free from confinement in terms of creativity without the boundaries of replicating reality. They have produced many of the most stunning pieces of animated film in existence and when watching them you can’t help but notice the difference between them and Hollywood blockbusters.

A similar feat was reached with the creation Cooper and Schoedsack’s 1933 ‘King Kong’. At the time people were fascinated and terrified with the film and (funnily enough) its realism. Looking back now it’s no more than a comical joke delving deep down into the uncanny valley and it was made truly redundant with the release of Peter Jackson’s 2006 remake. I can say on this day that in the 2006 version King Kong himself looks ‘real’. But what has changed in those 73 years? Has reality really changed? Or is it our exposure to visual effects, its improvements and advancements that leave us saying “that doesn’t look real”? It’s clear now that with 1933’s ‘King Kong’ and the introduction of special effects in cinema was a spellbinding sight to behold for people of the time compared to modern society’s interpretation of realism is a question of “have the visuals advanced”?

I admit I was blown away with James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’, but how long before the next advancement in visual effects hits the screen can I say it looks ‘real’?