A photograph that is painted over, will always maintain the essence
of a photograph.
Photo shadows can not hide behind a paint stroke. Photos read photos,
always.
mando
On Sep 10, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Chris Miller wrote:
But there are no cases where anyone (great painter or not) has
controlled a
line within a photograph so intensely that we might call it drawn.
What the hell does that mean? And of what consequence is it? But
then, there is no case where a horse has climbed a tree so
intensely that we might call it a cat.
Everything in a photograph is a shape, that is, light falls on the
focal plane simultaneously all over (okay, okay, panoramic cameras
are slightly different) so that the image is constructed of shapes;
whereas in a drawing, things are often delineated with an outline
that is used to surround a shape and define its edges. Most good
artists know that the lines--intense and flaccid as they might be--
are in fact shapes, and attentive artists regard the boundary
between two areas as a line equal to a drawn "line," if not more
intensely so.
In computer vector graphics (not images), computer drawn lines are
in actuality very narrow shape areas, basically boxes with extreme
proportions of 500:1 or 2000:1 or something like that.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
