If you think the background doesn't count in portrait photo of Lincoln, consider the effect of havin g the head very sdmall or so large as to crowd the edges of the picture. A blank background is never blank. It is a shape and that shapes affects how we see and regard the photo. This is first lesson stuff. Re Lincoln's photos specifically, keep in mind that those photos were glass negative photos, where exposure time was relatively long and Lincoln was seated in a chair with a head brace to hold him still. Thus a background of real life would have been blurred if anything was moving, even in the wind. I am amazed that Cheerskep, one expert in the stage, would think that a clear background would be lacking expression. Is an empty stage really empty, ever? WC
--- On Sun, 10/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 10:43 AM > I think Chris's point has its merits, as long as > it's made clear it all > depends on the effect the "artist" wants his work > to have. > > For example, in photography I've seen photos meant to > "portray" a central > figure but our feeling for and into her was enhanced by > showing her standing > in > the midst of devastation around her (from war, flood, > plague). Other > photographers with other aims deliberately want our focus > to be on solely this > rich, > revealing face. I've seen many photos of Abraham > Lincoln in situ. None of > them > compares in impact on me with the ones that are solely > head-shots, with all > "background" eliminated. > > It may be my limited visualizing ability that prompts me to > say that the > "edges of the canvas" seem to me largely > irrelevant in those photos. Yes, I > can > imagine someone's cropping down to just Lincoln's > eyes to create what is in > effect a different photo. But once the photographer's > aim is to make it a full > head-shot, I feel background could detract from the desired > impact, and that, > as long as the entire head is presented, the photographer > can acheve his aim > with minimal concern for what the framer does. > > > In a message dated 10/5/08 11:18:46 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > I'd be more interested in following Miller's > assessments of what mattered > > to painters in premodernist times if he had actual > evidence in the way of > > their commentary to back him up. Instead we are left > his own > interpretations > > which have no support in history. His reference to > the supposedly > unfinished > > portions of paintings is not any indication that the > artist didn't care > about > > subordinate areas because degrees of refinement are no > guide to quality and > > primary and secondary or tertiary areas in an artwork > are equally important > to > > the whole. > > > > Anyone who has ever painted a portrait or still life > in a traditional manner > > knows how important it is to create a sense of > atmosphere enveloping the > > objects depicted (both in back and in front). That is > the assured way to > > suggest the fullness of round objects. All the great > portrait painters up > to the > > late Baroque did that. One can't paint the area > around something with the > goal > > of making it seem like real atmosphere and regard it > as inconsequential at > > the same time. Velasquez, arguably one of the best > portrait painters in > > western art, gave special attention to that issue, as > did, of course, > Rembrandt, > > and let's not forget it was Leonardo himself who > explicated the importance > of > > aerial perspective, which is another term for > atmospheric illusionism. > > > > One more thing: Portrait painters know that the least > important features to > > portray are the eyes, mouth, nose; the most important > are the relationships > > among them. They also know that it's wise to keep > the features a bit vague > > so that the viewer will see the person they project. > And people always like > > what they "see" more than what another sees. > Even Jacques David knew that. > > When he finished one of his most edifying portraits of > Napoleon, the emperor > > was said to reply that David didn't paint him as > he was but as the people > saw > > him. Napoleon, always imitating Alexander the Great, > believed that as > > Alexander never sat for his portrait, neither would > he, knowing that for a > leader > > it's better to be idealized than shown as nature > provides. > > > > All of this points to the significance of the flat > plane of the painting > > surface, originally -- and perhaps always -- an > architectural feature, > whether > > or not perspectival and atmospheric illusionism is > sought. It's a fool's > game > > to imagine that artists were visually dumber in one > time than in another. I > > think ample historical evidence justifies how artists > "converse" across > > centuries or millennia. > > > > Even in literature, writers know that incident, a well > chosen detail or some > > slight event brings a character to life, fully > imagined and animate. The > > same is true in painting. And 'also' (to use > a word made famous by Ms. > Palin) > > no sculptor of any repute ever ignores the space > around his work, but in > fact > > employs it as essential to expression. > > > > 'Also', owner's marks on Asian artworks > are like marginalia in medieval > > manuscripts. Space was alloted for the purpose in > both types of work. > > WC > > > > > > > > > > > ************** > New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! > > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
