Chris, you misquote me
A photograph that is painted over,
to make it look like a painting will always
maintain the essence of a photograph.
Photo shadows can not hide behind a paint stroke.
Photos read photos, always.
Aesthetically, two distinct entities
mando
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
But photographs can't accommodate the kind of aesthetic immersion
which good
paintings and drawings can.
Not because they offer less of an opportunity for "filling-in"
but because
the photographer cannot draw a line or fine tune an edge, hue, or
tone. (CM)
That's like saying that a tuba cannot produce the languorous sound
of an
oboe--not because a tuba offers less of an opportunity for filling
in, but
because it cannot draw out a seductive note or indolent tone.(MB)
-----------
Perhaps that's why the tuba is included less often in orchestration
- but I
think a more obvious analogy would be bass drum and violin.
Photographs can produce effects that paintings and drawings
cannot, and can
"accommodate the kind of aesthetic immersion" that good paintings
and drawings
cannot. (MB)
For one thing, I doubt that's true. And for another, my experience
is that
the effects a photograph can produce are not only different, but
also less
desirable than what is possible from painting or any of the other
arts that
you mentioned (dance, symphonic music, sculpture), all of which
allow for
greater aesthetic control than a camera.
Ansel Adams may well have insisted that "the photo was made in the
developing
tray and he controlled that" , but the tones in his prints still
seem muddy to
me, compared with how Rembrandt, Goya, or Daumier can make black
and gray
feel like delicious colors.
Perhaps you don't taste those colors or perhaps you don't miss them
when they
are absent.
But I do.
____________________________________________________________
Save hundreds on an Unsecured Loan - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxUQ98dxliMXktnS3r7fgJuqu
JLcgqBFEmHgc2TmopWw8szDpxtUkw/
