Interview: Peter Trippi on Realism in Art
Q&A with the editor-in-chief of Fine Art Connoisseur
In this interview, I dive into the world of realism with Peter Trippi, editor-in-chief of Fine Art Connoisseur, covering topics like:
Peter's winding path in the art world, from museums to magazine editing
Defining the term "realism" from Courbet to contemporary representational art
How 19th-century art was cinema before cinema
We also talk about Realism Live, a virtual event starting this Tuesday that he co-hosts with Eric Rhoads, featuring demos by top artists. I've partnered with Streamline Publishing to offer a 10% discount with code CLASSICALREALIST
A Winding Path in the Art World
Fletcher Graham: All right, so you're Peter Trippi, editor-in-chief of Fine Art Connoisseur, and you literally wrote the book on J.W. Waterhouse. Is there anything else readers should know about you?
Peter Trippi: I'm honored to be here! I am a bit of a strange bird. I've been editing Fine Art Connoisseur for art collectors since 2006, but I came into it from the museum world, where I worked as a curator, director, and fundraiser. Since starting with Fine Art Connoisseur, I've also taken on guest curating for exhibitions on Victorian art from Britain, including J.W. Waterhouse, and artists like Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Rossetti, and Holman Hunt. I've covered American realism and collections of master paintings in New England, too.
I feel incredibly lucky. I get to work from home in New York City, travel the world to see incredible art, and then bring it together in exhibitions, usually with a catalog attached. It's a joyful life. Meeting living artists is always a thrill because that's what it's all about—people like you who are full of ideas and imagery. I'm just an observer and commentator. I don't make art myself, but I love looking at it.
Fletcher: That's fantastic. you're really creating momentum for realism on all fronts.
Peter: Yes! And I should stress that I love connecting the past and the present. It's essential to remember that we're not coming out of nowhere; we're standing on the shoulders of those who came before us.
We want innovation; artists should be creative and be completely themselves. Everyone has a unique story to tell. But, like in music, there's a foundation of knowledge in every field before you can take off and break the rules. We refer to Picasso, Monet, and Rembrandt not to copy them but to learn from their successes and failures and then go our own way.
Fletcher: Absolutely. You have to learn the rules before you know which ones to break. So, how did you get into art, especially since you don't make art yourself?
Peter: Well, I was lucky to grow up in Washington, D.C., which is full of world-class, free museums. My mother worked as an administrator at the Smithsonian and the National Gallery, so I spent a lot of time exploring the National Mall. It was safe and fun, and art never felt like a homework assignment—it was more like a treasure hunt. Museums are great because you can have a meal, shop, and escape the weather. And I knew early on that museums weren't just places to guard art but that there was a staff working behind the scenes to bring it all to life. That was a privilege to learn at a young age.
Later, in college at William & Mary, I thought I'd study politics and economics—like a proper Washingtonian! But I fell in love with art history. My grades were better in that field, so I thought, why not? I also have a photographic memory, which helped.
Then, I went to Scotland for a year and discovered the Pre-Raphaelites and Victorian artists in the U.K. I truly fell in love with them in 1986. Back then, those artists were unknown in America. They were a British secret, so to speak. So, I brought back that slightly weird taste to the U.S.
And that was my start. I went on to graduate school in London and New York. So, it's been a journey—a bit of a strange one. But you'll agree, in the art world, everyone carves their own path.
Realism Live
Fletcher Graham: Let's talk about Realism Live. It sounds really exciting! What is it exactly?
Peter Trippi: It's an incredible story. Back in 2020, my colleague Eric Rhoads—publisher of Fine Art Connoisseur and head of Streamline Publishing—and I were planning another in-person figurative art conference. We'd held these events yearly across the country, where artists and art lovers gathered to learn from great masters through painting, drawing, and art history lectures, with a huge hall dedicated to art supplies.
Of course, that became impossible in 2020, and we had to cancel that event for safety reasons. So we pivoted, creating Realism Live as a virtual event. It was the same idea—offering instruction, demos, and discussions—but filmed and streamed online. Each artist recorded their demo, which allowed us to provide reliable, high-quality content without worrying about the technical hiccups of live streaming. We've kept the format ever since, and it's been hugely successful. Now, people around the world can join us, and Realism Live is back for its fifth year!
Fletcher: That's great! How is the event structured?
Peter: We kick off with an "Essentials Day" on November 12th, where beginners or anyone wanting a refresher can focus on core concepts like values and composition. Then, the main event spans three days, covering various topics—from floral painting and portraiture to drawing. Eric and I host, welcoming everyone each morning as we roll into the demos, and the artists are available live to answer questions as attendees watch.
There are also breakout rooms so attendees can connect and network from all over the world—some of whom might never be able to attend an in-person event due to travel costs. It's thrilling to see the reach this online format has given us.
Fletcher: Who are some of the artists featured this year?
Peter: Oh, it's a fantastic lineup! We have over 20 artists, including Kristy Gordon, Sarah Sedwick, Juliette Aristides, Zhaoming Wu, and many others. Each artist's session is 45–90 minutes long, and the full agenda is available on the Realism Live website. It's a wide range of styles and approaches, but all tied to realism.
Fletcher: It's great that participants can access the replays. It must feel like an on-demand course.
Peter: Yes, exactly. Depending on your registration level, you can rewatch the sessions for up to a year. It's especially valuable because absorbing all this content in one go would be intense. This way, you can revisit specific techniques or brushstrokes, and that access makes it more of an ongoing resource. We're also grateful to the artists for allowing this content to be available for a time while keeping the intellectual property rights—it's their work, after all.
We also have a virtual expo with top-tier companies like Sennelier and Fabriano, offering exclusive discounts for attendees. Their representatives—many of whom are artists themselves—demonstrate how to use the materials, which can be just as engaging as demos by the faculty.
Fletcher: I love it—what a fantastic resource for artists everywhere.
Peter: Thank you! It's so much fun every November, and I'm thrilled you're a partner this year. Thanks for spreading the word!
Defining Realism
Fletcher Graham: We've been throwing around the term "realism," I'd love to hear your thoughts on what realism means in art today. When I was studying art history, realism referred to a specific movement. It seems like it's almost used interchangeably with "representational" now.
Peter Trippi: It's been a real conundrum for 20 years or more. Historically, realism started with artists like Courbet, who had a very specific agenda, often depicting the lives of everyday people in a highly meticulous way. But over the past 150 years, realism has morphed. We now have photorealism, which has its own intention and effect yet still falls under "realism." So yes, we're definitely grappling with finding a fair and accurate term.
At Fine Art Connoisseur and with Realism Live, we've chosen "realism" because it's a useful hook. People remember it better than "representational," which is a bit wordy and technical. We've considered terms like "modern realism" to distinguish it from Courbet's realism, but even that raises questions.
So we aim for a "big tent" approach, covering work that spans traditional, sight-sized academic methods to loose, almost abstract styles. Realism Live's lineup reflects this diversity, which I'm proud of. We want to welcome as many people as possible.
Fletcher: I totally understand. And I agree—realism is simpler and rolls off the tongue more easily than "representational." The average person sees a meticulously painted still life and thinks, "Wow, that looks so realistic," not "representational" or "naturalistic."
Peter: Exactly. I'm always on the lookout for better terminology, but so far, none of the alternatives really work. We live in a world where branding matters, and the lack of a precise, memorable term can actually be a disadvantage. It's like what happened with the Young British Artists (YBAs) in the 1990s. Charles Saatchi, an advertising expert, popularized the term. Artists like Damien Hirst became global superstars in part because of that branding.
You could say the same for "Impressionism," which was initially a critical jab at Monet's work. But that term stuck, and now everyone knows what you mean by "Impressionist." There's a real power in having a memorable label, and it's something the art world can't ignore.
Fletcher: Right, it's interesting how terms take on their own life. If enough people refer to our scene as "realism," that's the term that will stick.
Cinema Before Cinema
Fletcher Graham: Were you always drawn to representational art specifically, or did that come from being interested in a specific era and location, and representational art happened to be the style of that time?
Peter Trippi: I was always aware of abstraction and respect it. I mean, a great Jackson Pollock is a beautiful thing. I'm not at all anti-abstract. But I've always been more interested in storytelling, which lends itself to representational art. For the same reasons many of us go to movies or watch TV shows, there's often a story to tell, and narrative images help bring that story to life. So I think that's where my heart is.
And, you know, I just wanted to see some kind of reflection—whether it's of the past, a universal theme, or even the present. A portrait of a living person is compelling, too. Let's face it, a painted portrait of a living person is a different thing than a photograph. They're both artworks but have different energy and a different set of concerns.
I've always respected that difference, and I think great photography deserves to be celebrated, too. Fine Art Connoisseur doesn't cover it only because we don't have the bandwidth. We publish six issues a year, so we can't cover the entire visual arts landscape. We have to focus on one area and aim to do it well.
Fletcher: Definitely. I liked what you said about representational art being well-suited for narrative. I know that Alma-Tadema's work was basically the "cinema" of his time.
Peter: Right, exactly. You're spot on. In fact, the exhibition we organized, which toured in the Netherlands, Austria, and England, showcased how later filmmakers borrowed directly from Alma-Tadema's work. His paintings were not copyrighted, so they could be copied almost entirely.
In our little niche of early 20th-century academic painting, there's a saying that the world of large-scale painting "died" when cinema arrived. A lot of the public shifted their attention from places like the Royal Academy in London to the cinema down the street on Regent Street. And that's okay—that's what technology does.
They couldn't believe their eyes. Suddenly, these beautiful images were moving, and people never looked back. That's why great filmmaking is art, too; there's no question about it. But that doesn't mean we should forget about painting.
We should absolutely continue to celebrate it and create our own because a painting has a different energy than a film.
Fletcher: Right—there was a time when a large narrative oil painting was the most immersive visual experience available in art, and now the big screen has taken that role.
Peter: Absolutely. It's funny to think that Frederic Church and Albert Bierstadt, those great Hudson River School painters, would create these massive landscapes and then hide them behind a curtain. The public would buy a ticket, sit down, the lights would go down, the curtain would lift—and there was the painting.
This was cinema before cinema.
And yes, they made money doing that—not with every painting, of course, just with the big ones. They would tour these works around like attractions, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. People wouldn't see those faraway places themselves; they were difficult to get to. So, the paintings brought the world to them.
Fletcher: Peter, this was great! We covered a lot. And thank you for giving me so much of your time.
Peter: Oh, thank you, Fletcher. I love it. Thank you for being a partner. And I hope others can participate through registration. We will be there on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
I hope you enjoyed this special interview edition of The Classical Realist. Today’s call-to-action is to check out Realism Live!
Cheers!
Fletcher Graham