Where Realism Becomes Experience: A Conversation with Tanya Atanasova

ZHANG HONGBIN: INTERVIEW WITH FiKVA FOUNDER – TANYA ATANASOVA

There is a lot of strong work being made, but not enough space for it to exist, to be seen, and to develop over time.

I felt there was a gap – not just in visibility, but also in understanding. Figurative painting was often seen as something traditional, or reduced to technical skill, rather than something alive, searching, and evolving.

So FiKVA began with a very simple intention: to create a platform that fully recognizes the value of this work and treats it on its own terms. And with time, to develop it further into a physical space – one that allows this kind of painting to be experienced in a direct, sustained, and meaningful way.

2. In a system where figurative art is still often categorized by styles such as “hyperrealism” or “classical realism,” why does FiKVA choose to move away from stylistic labels? Does this imply a redefinition of “realism” itself?

These labels can be useful in some contexts of course – but they also limit a bit how we see the work. They focus mostly on appearance, and less on meaning.

At FiKVA, we are more interested in what is happening underneath the surface. Realism, for us, is not just a fixed style or category – it’s more a way of engaging with reality.

So in that sense, yes, it does open up a broader understanding of realism. It becomes less about accuracy or imitation, and more about presence, perception, and how a work carries something real beyond its appearance.

3. You emphasize “technique, narrative, and sincerity.” What does it mean for a work to be “truthfully established”? How does this differ from mere representation or technical display?

To me, a work feels “truthfully established” when everything in it comes together in a natural and convincing way.

The technique is there, but it doesn’t draw attention to itself. The narrative exists, but it is not imposed. And sincerity – you sense that the artist is not trying to impress, but to express something that feels necessary.

At the same time, the work remains open. It leaves space for interpretation, for the viewer to enter and bring their own experience. It doesn’t explain everything – it unfolds gradually, often in layers.

This is very different from a work that is mainly about representation or technical display. Skill can be impressive, but it doesn’t always create depth. A truthful work has an inner coherence – it feels grounded, but also open, and it stays with you because there is always more to discover within it.

4. Can FiKVA be understood as shifting the focus away from categorizing artists within specific forms of realism, toward evaluating whether a work genuinely establishes a relationship with the viewer?
5. How does such a relationship occur in your view? How do you understand “contemporaneity” within contemporary realism? Is it reflected more in form, content, or in changes in modes of perception and viewing?

Yes, that’s very much the intention.

We are less interested in placing artists into categories and more interested in whether the work creates a real connection.

That connection can happen in many ways. It can be emotional, psychological, quiet, or even slightly unsettling. Sometimes it’s not something you can explain clearly, but you feel that something is there – that the work is present and open.

For me, contemporaneity is not only about subject matter or style. It’s also about how we see today. Our perception has changed – we are constantly exposed to images, speed, and fragmented attention.

So contemporary realism is also about being aware of this condition. It reflects how artists navigate and respond to this way of seeing, even in subtle or very quiet ways.

6. In a context where contemporary art is increasingly shaped by market forces, visibility, and trends, how does FiKVA concretely resist these external logics in its selection and curatorial processes? Is there an inevitable tension between ideals and reality?

FiKVA is a foundation – a non-profit organisation – not a commercial business. Of course, we constantly look for support and sponsors in order to exist, but this structure also gives us a certain freedom in how we make decisions.

We are not interested in how visible or commercial an artist already is.

We try to keep our focus very simple: on the work itself.
Not on trends, not on market value, not on external recognition.

Of course, there is always a tension between ideals and reality – that’s unavoidable. But clarity of direction helps us stay focused within that space. It keeps returning us to the core questions: does the work have an impact, does it carry a story, does the technique truly hold everything together, and ultimately – what is the artist trying to say, and does it touch you in a human way?

7. In a field where realist art is often dominated by technical standards, how does FiKVA define the value of technique while avoiding a slide into a purely technical competition?

At the annual FiKVA Award, we see a lot of hyperrealism at the very highest level, with an impressive command of technique. As a jury member myself, I always give strong recognition when the technical execution is solid and refined.

But technique is not the only criterion we look at when we make our selection.

In many contexts, realist painting can easily become focused on perfection, almost like a competition of skill. We try to step away from that way of thinking.

For us, technique should be in service of the work – it should support meaning, atmosphere, and intention. And beyond that, we also ask a very simple question: does the work touch you in some way? Because when a work is both technically strong and emotionally present, that is where it truly becomes memorable.

8. When technique, concept, and expression come into conflict, how do you navigate this balance? Is the focus of evaluation shifting from “how well a work is executed” to “whether it truly has an effect”?

Yes, very much so.

When these elements are not fully aligned, we tend to look at the overall effect of the work.

A piece can be technically imperfect and still be very strong and convincing. And the opposite also happens – a technically flawless work can feel empty.

In a time where AI is having an increasing impact on the creative field, this becomes even more relevant. Perfection is no longer the ultimate measure. Imperfection can become an artistic statement in itself – an expression of something human, something personal, something that cannot be replicated.

So the focus naturally shifts toward whether the work actually does something – whether it creates an experience, whether it stays with the viewer, and whether it carries a sense of real presence beyond its execution.

At the same time, we are very careful not to push artists toward a certain “international style.” On the contrary, we value when a work carries something specific – something rooted in a personal or cultural context. Maintaining that distinctiveness is important, because it is often where the work becomes most authentic and meaningful.

So rather than smoothing out differences, we try to create a context where they can exist, be seen, and be understood in a broader way.

10. While expanding opportunities, how does FiKVA avoid creating new biases or implicit selection criteria? How is “fairness” concretely practiced?

Fairness is not something you achieve once – it’s something you keep working on all the time.

For the FiKVA Award, we work with a jury of around 10 to 12 people. We try to make this group as open, inclusive, and diverse as possible, so we can look at the work from different angles. Our jurors come from very different backgrounds in the field of figurative art – from hyperrealism to surrealism, classical and imaginative realism – which helps keep the discussion broad and balanced.

We also try to have a good mix in other ways: men and women, different countries, younger and more experienced voices, and people at very different stages in their careers. Some are well-known artists; others are just starting out. We also include curators, gallery owners, collectors, art historians, and art journalists.

Here is the place to say, that we are also very happy and truly honoured to have Mr. Zhang Hongbin from the Sheng Xinyu organisation joining us as a guest jury member for the second year.

This mix of perspectives is important, because it helps prevent any single view from taking over. In the end, we always try to stay close to the same point: to look at the work itself as openly as possible. And of course, we are also aware that bias can never be completely removed – it can only be questioned and balanced through conversation and awareness.

11. By supporting artists through awards, exhibitions, publications, residencies, and education, does FiKVA go beyond “selecting artists” to actively shaping their long-term development paths?

The idea is not just to select artists once, but to stay connected with their work over time and create moments where it can continue to grow and be seen in different contexts. Artists need continuity, not only isolated moments of recognition.

Through different formats – the award, exhibitions, publications, and occasional educational initiatives like masterclasses – we try to create a framework where development can happen gradually and in a more sustainable way. It’s less about directing an artist’s path, and more about supporting visibility and exchange at meaningful points along the way.

12. Why does FiKVA aim to build an ongoing artistic ecosystem rather than a one-time selection or exhibition platform? Are you seeking to change access points, or the entire structural logic of the system?

A single exhibition can be meaningful, but it doesn’t change much structurally.

We wanted to create something more continuous – something that builds connections over time and creates lasting support.

So it’s not only about access, but also about how the system works as a whole, and how artists can move within it.

13. In your view, what are the key conditions for a sustainable and relatively independent ecosystem for realist art? Does FiKVA aim to integrate into the existing system, or to construct an alternative structure?

A sustainable ecosystem needs clarity, independence, and trust.

Clarity in our vision, independence from short-term trends, and trust from artists and collaborators.

We are not trying to replace the existing system, but we are also not fully depending on it. It’s more about building something alongside it – something that can develop on its own terms, while still being part of a wider landscape and contributing to it in a meaningful way.

14. In today’s context, how has the distance between the public and figurative art been formed? Is FiKVA not only supporting artists but also reshaping ways of seeing and the discourse of art? In the long term, what kind of impact do you hope to have on the global art landscape?

The distance has developed gradually, through the way art has been presented, discussed, and framed over time.

Many people still connect very naturally to figurative work, but they don’t always feel it belongs within the context of contemporary art.

FiKVA is trying to shift that – not only by supporting artists, but also by gently opening up how this kind of work is seen, understood, and spoken about.

In the long term, I hope it contributes to a more open and balanced art landscape, where different approaches can exist next to each other without hierarchy, and where figurative painting is clearly understood as part of the present – not something of the past.

With special thanks to Zhang Honghbin