So, is the point of drawing/painting an accurate depiction of

>>2786349
It's whatever the fuck you want.
If you can make money being abstract or expressing yourself, go ahead.
If you simply like drawing and want to showcase your raw talent, then strive for that.
>but one has to be the one that gives painting its meaning and value over the other.
If it adds something to the painting, then use it. If it takes away from the painting, don't. It's that fucking simple.
Your question is confusing by the way.

>>2786349

Photorealism can be sometimes nice to observe to see where artist put more detail and where not. Seriously it's closer to me in that regard to very abstracted paintings and abstract expressionism than to most people. At such point it's really more about individual strokes and such.

If it comes to realism/classicism, it's rarely about being really accurate, usually you put more detail in the place of focus and you became more lose outside of that field of vision. Also choice of pallette isn't without importance.

It's easier to see when you do photomanipulation in LAB space in Photoshop - you will see that with same values but different saturation or hue you can have totally different feeling from photo/collage/photomanip.

Even such simple things like putting your portrait on simple background, abstracted, heavily blurred one or "full" can give different meaning/response to the painting.

P.S. I don't even like realism and what /ic/ preaches most of the time

>>2786357
>hurr anything goes

>>2786367
well, i guess anything goes then...

>>2786349
there is no "point of painting", this isn't something god ordained. different artists have different motivations, and balance realism, expressionism, and many other considerations differently.