what i don't understand in some Photo Realism paintings with a
tree as part
of the composition. Every thing looks right except the tree, with
it's millions of
leaves,and each one with perfect shadows. Now,I don't know any artist
that
can painting in all those millions of shadows unless and they are
frozen, which
they are, and expect us to believe that he actually painted from a
live tree, or
even from a photo. The details are more pronounced in small distant
thing than
in the foreground.
mando
On Dec 7, 2008, at 4:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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)
