Why are there no photorealistic paintings from the old days?

Question

As proven by many recent examples, some people can develop their drawing skill to such a level as to produce drawings that are difficult to distinguish from photographs. Yet much of historical art is stylized.How come we don't see any photorealistic drawings from the old days? They do not appear to depend on any modern technology, so it seems odd that _no_ historical artist would try it. Was it simply because other styles were fashionable at the time, so that artists would stylize their paintings for artistic effect?Was it because people didn't have enough free time to practice drawing, say, 1000 years ago? I find it difficult to imagine that _nobody_ did.Or maybe photorealistic paintings _are_ in fact influenced by the development of photography, and the paintings we see today would simply not look particularly realistic to people before photography became mainstream?(Another possibility is that I am simply factually wrong and photorealistic drawings from the old days exist, but are simply not famous enough for me to have seen them.)

Answer 1

There are a couple of factors that play into the answer of this one, so there's not a very simple answer. Firstly, photorealism is definitely the invention of an era in which photography exists. Even some of the most incredibly realistic art in history isn't quite photorealistic because that standard had not been set yet, the idea probably hadn't been considered. Artists could achieve realism to the best of their ability, and then had license to make it look more impressive or aesthetically pleasing.

Beyond this, there is certainly something to be said about the way style evolves in history. Questioning art, what is good art, what is bad art, and appraising art based on ideals instead of aesthetics is incredibly new to art history. The artists of the past did not question art or develop dramatically new techniques (with exception of some artists!) because this would challenge the status quo of art. Firstly, art was for the rich, and to create something that challenged the current art style was the death of your career because rich patrons would not hire you. Secondly, if you were an artist then you learned from a master and created art that 100% matched their style until you became a successful artist and got the opportunity to change a few things. If you didn't adopt the exact style of your master, you were fired as an apprentice. The Egyptians kept the same art style for several hundred years! That's how powerful tradition can be.

Next we have to question the materials available at the time. Paints and other materials were made in a very different way and behaved very differently during those times. Realism is certainly achievable with the materials they had, but the finer detail of photorealism might not have been achievable.

There's also the question of what the patron wanted out of the art piece. Most patrons were looking for something beautiful, and depending on the time and place that definitely meant not rendering every detail. The Romans can be excluded from this, they had a fun thing for very realistic portraits and busts and were some of the first art consumers to actually request to be depicted with every single wrinkle.

There's much more to be discussed about this, but those are some basics surrounding the conversation!