I accept that both paintings and photography deal with the artist's
perception of reality (or something). However, it seems to me to be true
that photography offered a means of reflecting a/the reality which is/was
unequalled and led many painters to explore limits which were new to "art".
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reading Peter Kivy Nd - looking through that telescope
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 18:34:37 -0800 (PST)
There are a lot of assumptions in these remarks by Kate and Mando. None of
them are anything other than value judgments, and very narrow ones at that.
Again, there are some paintings made from photographs in which the
subject to be investigated and painted is the photograph. The aim is to
make a painting that examines the information in the photograph. In these
cases, the aim is not to use the photo as a quick aid to organizing nature.
The photo is not a template, but the subject itself.
Flatness and "stupid color" (and what is stupid color?) are not
necessarily the result of using photograps in painting. Some other artists
use the photo as an aid to painting the look of nature. As one who never
uses a photograph in any part of my work, I don't care much whatever
choices others make about using photos. In my opinion, anything at all may
be used to make art because it's not the means but the ends that matter.
Also, I think it's an obvious fact that nature has always been mediated by
some schema and these influence our perceptions. We should keep in mind
that we always "construct" our sense impressions and we construct them
according to both learned and intuited gestalt patterns. So even when
today's artists don't use photographs in making their paintings, they are
perceiving nature as if it were a photograph. We can't go back to
pre-photographic mental constructs of perception.
WC
--- On Sun, 12/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Reading Peter Kivy Nd - looking through that telescope
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 6:53 PM
> 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)
