On Dec 12, 2009, at 4:18 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:10 AM, P N Stenquist <[email protected]
> wrote:
Most art is artificial. It's a representation. The world would be a
pretty
drab place without it.
Paul
Paul, I was talking about a particular genre of photographic
portraiture, not art in general.
BTW, ~all~ art is real, insofar as it's "really art". Not all art is
a representation of anything (hence, abstract art). And among the
representative arts, some artists strive to be more accurate or
reflective of reality (whatever the hell that is) than others.
What I like spans the gamut from complete abstract to hyper-real, but
within that huge range there are genres and individual pieces that I
like or dislike more than others.
My reaction to Bill's rendering has nothing to do with whether I
prefer art to be representative of reality or not. It has to do with
my preferences wrt photographic portraits. It's a personal thing.
I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I know that there are those
that disagree with me, and that's fine.
But since my viewpoint is subjective, neither can anyone tell me that
I'm wrong in my feelings.
Of course you're not wrong. I was reacting to your closing sentence:
"A subject can be pleased and flattered without making them look
artificial, IMHO." I felt "artificial" was a bit disparaging here. But
perhaps I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time:-)
Cheers,
Paul
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
