We see things not as they are, but as we are.” — Anaïs Nin
Due to the nature of my work, I am often asked, “How do you get your paintings to look so realistic?” I genuinely love when a colleague or aspiring representationalist opens this door in a conversation, as it usually leads to great exchanges about art, visual perception, and a host of related topics. When people ask about making work look realistic, they often instinctively associate it with a direct accordance with reality, assuming it means adding more detail, increasing resolution, or refining rendering. While these factors can contribute to a realistic representation, the most crucial accordance is not merely with physical reality but with how a viewer’s perceptual experience of the representation aligns with their past experiences of reality.
To clarify, as I stated in my 2019 paper What Does Realistic Look Like?, “realistic” for the representational artist is often best understood in terms of what people actually mean when they describe something as realistic:
“Realistic is the degree of relative similarity between a perceptual response to a surrogate, simulation, or other representation and the past perceptual responses to the stimulus, stimulus components, or experience that is being represented.”
This view of “realistic” not only accords with what is the case, but it can have a significant impact on how representationalism is approached. For me, it has led to extensive consideration of what I call the A1 Problem. My focus on this issue has profoundly influenced my assumptions and, in turn, the decisions and strategies I employ in my painting process.
“The A1 Problem refers to the challenge of trying to create representations that appear highly faithful to a subject (what most colloquially refer to as ‘realistic’ work) while relying on a vision system that does not provide a direct or veridical view of reality.”
Here’s how it works: An artist cannot access objective reality directly through their visual system. Instead, when interacting with a subject (A), what informs their perception is not A itself but their own internal perceptual experience of it (A1). It is A1—not A—that guides the representation they create.
When a viewer encounters this representation, they do not experience A1 objectively any more than the artist experienced A objectively. Instead, the viewer generates their own perceptual response (A2) relative to A)), shaped by their cognitive biases, prior experiences, and contextual factors. Because perception is inherently non-veridical, achieving greater ‘realism’ is not simply about faithfully copying A1, but rather about constructing an image that ensures A2 aligns as closely as possible with the viewer’s past perceptual encounters with A.”
The non-veridical nature of human visual perception makes direct replication of an object’s “true” properties impossible. As George Berkeley (1709) pointed out several centuries ago, sources underlying visual stimuli are unknowable in any direct sense. The objective nature of visual stimuli remains fundamentally unknowable in any direct sense—a fact repeatedly confirmed by modern research. The retinal projection of an object does not contain explicit information about size, distance, or orientation, meaning that vision must “construct” with evolved responses rather than directly capture reality. Interestingly enough, in 2013, Patrick Cavanagh and his colleagues investigated whether artists have “enhanced access” to low-level visual processing or a “more veridical” perception compared to non-artists. The study found that artists do not have special perceptual expertise that allows them direct access to their retinal image or any learned strategies to recover that image. Instead, the advantage of artists may arise from more robust representations of object structure in memory, which are more appropriate to the visuomotor demands of drawing.
“Artists working within the framework influenced by the A1 Problem should recognize that making something ‘realistic’ is not about mechanically reproducing visual input but about creating a surrogate that strategically maximizes consistency across viewers’ perceptual responses. The artist is not merely painting A1 (their own percept of the subject) but constructing a representation that evokes a percept (A2) that aligns with the collective past perceptual experiences associated with A (the subject). Achieving this requires an understanding of perceptual mediation and the cognitive mechanisms that shape visual experience.”
Why Not Just Paint What You See?
There has long been extensive discussion about whether it is better to paint what you see or what you know. There can be quite a few problems with both for the observational representationalist. The mindset that I have always found highly advantageous—one that dovetails with an approach that considers the A1 Problem—is: paint what you wish viewers to know.
On the surface, some might argue that an artist can bypass concerns of perceptual mediation by simply ensuring that their painting “looks the same” as the subject to their own eyes. However, this perspective neglects several key issues regarding perception:
- Individual Perception is Not Objective
As we’ve already stated, visual perception is not a direct reflection of external reality but a construct of the brain, shaped by a multitude of complex factors—including contrast adaptation, color constancy, opponency, and contextual expectations. Because of this, even when an artist believes they are faithfully matching what they see, the nature of their own perceptual system is doing much of the heavy lifting in “constructing” the input that informs them.
- Viewers Will Not See the Painting as the Artist Does
A viewer’s perceptual experience of an artwork (A2, relative to A) is defined, in great part, by their own visual processing system, which is heavily influenced by prior experiences (both ontogenetic and phylogenetic) and expectations. If an artist strictly adheres to a process of (A1) mimicry, the viewer’s perceptual response (A2) is less likely to align with the artist’s experience of A than if the representation were strategically adjusted through informed amplifications, augmentations, and compensations.
This approach does not prioritize a direct visual match between the subject and its representation but instead optimizes the potential alignment between A1 and A2, ensuring the viewer’s perceptual response more closely reflects the artist’s intended experience of A.
The Software-Hardware Metaphor: Art as Neural Programming
To conceptualize this further, we can use a software-hardware analogy. Art objects function as pieces of software that initiate potent neural programs within the observer. The perceived intrinsic properties (physical features) of the artwork combine with extrinsic properties (beliefs, biases, contextual expectations) within the observer’s hardware (neurological and cognitive framework) to yield an experience that we describe as “art.”
This means that an artwork is not an objective entity but rather an experience that, in our case, involves a new perceptual event within the mind of each observer. While we cannot predict with certainty how this neural program will execute on every individual’s perceptual system, we can apply an appropriate understanding of perceptual dynamics to maximize the potential for consistency and deliberately influence the level of potential realism from experience with the representation.
In this context, success is not about the strict replication of reality (which can be an inherently problematic approach) but about aligning A2 (the viewer’s percept) as closely as possible with their past experiences with A. The closer this alignment, the more ‘realistic’ the representation will seem.
Let’s Review:
Understanding the A1 Problem highlights the importance of visual perception studies for artists seeking a high degree of representational fidelity. This has several key implications:
- Awareness of Perceptual Mechanisms can Greatly Improve “Realistic Representation” Strategies
Simply copying what is “seen” does not necessarily produce an image that aligns with the common perceptual experiences that you may intend. However, awareness of key aspects of visual perception—such as perceptual biases, color adaptation, and depth cues—can allow artists to construct images that better resonate with viewers’ perceptual expectations.
- Strategic Representation Can Enhance Perceived Realism
Artists regularly and thoughtfully amplify, adjust, or suppress certain visual elements to shape the viewer’s perceptual experience. However, without an awareness of how visual perception may influence the viewer’s experience with a representation, opportunities for significant impact can be lost.
One powerful strategy is to engage a viewer as a more active participant in the representation process, guiding A2 (the viewer’s percept) toward the intended A1 (the artist’s percept). For instance, closure opportunities—such as lost and found edges—can strategically enhance how realistic a representation tends to appear by prompting viewers to perceptually “fill in” missing information, reinforcing alignment with their past perceptual experiences.
- Viewer Experience Should Be Considered
Different audiences may have different perceptual priors (i.e., past A1s with a subject). To ensure broader perceptual alignment, the artist must work to deliberately maximize consistency across viewer experiences. This requires strategic adjustments that consider common visual interpretations rather than relying solely on individual perception.
- Medium and Context Influence Perception
Every medium—whether painting, digital, or photography—has its own inherent information transformations and translations. However, for those seeking greater realism, it is important to remember that regardless of the medium, the end users remain fundamentally the same. With this in mind, artists can strategically manipulate elements such as contrast, edges, and spatial composition to optimize perceptual effectiveness and reinforce the intended experience.
Conclusion
A thoughtful consideration of the A1 Problem helps artists appreciate, understand, and navigate the perceptual mediation inherent in representational art. Creating highly realistic imagery is not about strict adherence to objective reality but about how effectively an image triggers a perceptual response that aligns with the viewer’s past encounters with the subject.
By exploring fields such as visual perception, cognitive science, and psychology, representational artists can more deliberately refine their methods—bridging the gap between percepts to ensure that the viewer’s A2 experience aligns as closely as possible with their prior experiences with A.
This insight elevates representation beyond mere imitation, transforming it into a deliberate manipulation of visual perception—one that acknowledges the non-veridical nature of vision and leverages it to construct powerful, engaging, and perceptually resonant imagery.
As always, I hope that this article helps those of you following the challenging path of realistic representation. I wish you all great success!