There's a difference between copying the photograph and using it to make a picture. If you copy,mando is quite right, it is flat, the color is stupid and very often the drawing is bad. If you use a photograph as a piece f information you find the perspective, you play with the color within reason, you paint the air between pieces of architecture, you go back and look at the place or you find a few more things out about it, you find things in the photograph you can't see and you wind up with a picture,not a copy of a photograph. Degas used them. Gerome used them,Bourgereau used them. It depends I suppose on how atttached to to the sight of the physical world as seen by other people you are. If you would rather paint your own world then you probably wouldn't use them. Among other advantages from on site painting they mean you can pick your vantage point instead of having to submit to the constrictions of the site-and a lot of the real world doesn't lend itself to sitting safely,nor is the air very clean. In my case it means there are no gender restrictions,since I can take as many pictures of streetcars and locomotives, or highways, as I like without frightening anyone or having them think I'm in the way. KAte Sullivan In a message dated 12/7/08 6:47:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm referring to painting as paintings, not useing the photo as a by > the numbers guide. > Or paintings that paint over a photo but not over the eyes, when the > eyes are the > significant part of the painting and the artist calls it a painting. > To me, essence of the > painting is destroyed. I cannot imaging where photography will take > us in art even now. > Some of the best art for me is in photography by the camera in orbit. > mando > > On Dec 7, 2008, at 1:52 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > Lots of painting has been based on photos without being "photo- > > realist". This was true for some Impressionists. Some more recent > > painters deal with the photo as if it were nature; that is, their > > subject is the photograph, not what the photo depicts. Thus we > > can't always say the the photo "kills the essence of nature" when > > the photo itself is the "nature" being depicted. More generally, > > it's almost impossible to find any post 1850 art that has not been > > somehow influenced by the camera lens, except, perhaps in some > > isolated cultures. Of course the influence worked the other way > > around too. Early photography frequently imitated painting and > > sculpture. And some might argue that the photo lens itself > > imitates Renaissance perspective (the one-eye focus). What if the > > Egyptians had invented photography in, say, 1600 BCE? What would > > their lens and images look like? Typical Egyptian imagery? > > WC > ************** Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
