Photography Vs. Painting, Does The Compliment Work Both Ways?

Indeed. I personally think if someone said my painting looked like a photograph I would be pleased. I also think a photograph that looks like a painting would also be a compliment. No problems with that from stand point.

Some painters are going for that, hence the term "photorealism." I prefer the term "representational" when it comes to my own paintings, but I've never taken it in a bad way when people say mine look like photographs.

I agree 100% with what Sydne said.

That's one fabulous, stunning image, Rich......in any medium. You've managed to produce what is fine texture, colour , composition, Fine Art !!! Period !!
I find photo-realism a tad too 'real' or sometimes 'surreal' in the painting genre of that term, but, big but, have no conflict about painting vs photography as Fine Art......mine, included, hohoho !!
Each genre has its qualities and limitations.........but aren't competitive, imo. Quality Tells......every time !

i try to go for a painting look, most look for that term anyway, i stopped correcting them a while ago. because when i did, they weren't convinced.

---Mike Savad

I wish I could paint and someday I may learn but in the meantime recieving the photo looks like a painting response would be the highest
compliment in my book :-)

Great art Rich, beautiful work.

This is my two cents on fine art photography:

The term fine art photography is used when you create a desired effect and/or to articulate an impression, mood, whatever you want to call it in an image. When I use my camera it's not only to capture a moment in time, but to preserve that moment in the most artistic way possible. Not being a painter I use HDR to create a feeling of painted images in some of my photography. It is meant to enhance the photo, not to replace it. In my natural light photography, I use light to paint the image. I don't use anything but a great camera, lens, and sometimes a polarizing filter. Luck and patience also helps in capturing a special moment.

Art is art, it's in the eyes of the beholder (the customer) that really counts.

Art is art in many forms, and I appreciate MOST of it. Live and let live is what I always say...sometimes.

The only thing I do not agree with is putting things in the same catogory, such as oil paintings & photography in a show.

This is something to think about, and it will probably rub some the wrong way. lol
However, I believe that most of us who paint, can also take a fair photo sometime, but most photographers can not paint a decent painting. Don't get your feathers rialed, you know I'm right ! ; )


All I want is for you all to have a Happy New Year !

Someone thought one of my painting thumbnails was a photograph the other day and I was VERY pleased!

Leanne..........I really admire your bio, and expertise, and dedication.........your Art is outstanding..........

I had a comment on one of my paintings on here from a fellow artist telling me he thought it was a photo when he first saw it. I took it as a high compliment even though I don't try for photo-realism :)

when i was still on a critique site, more often then not, i get the line -

don't take this as an insult, but it looks like a painting. or looks more like a painting then a photo...

why would i be insulted about that?


---Mike Savad

I don't see how it would be an insult either way...especially if you are going for a certain look. But you never know how someone will perceive what you intend to be a compliment I guess.

For some reason, people (not artists usually) equate photo realistic painting with something really good...that the artist is painting at a very high level. It's a style, yes...I happen to love it...but I don't think it is 'better' than any other style of painting. I know of painters who would definitely take "it looks like a photograph' as a compliment.

I think, as a photographer, being told 'it looks like a painting'...with enthusiasm...COULD be taken as a compliment. It depends how YOU feel about it. If you don't want your photographs to look like paintings, you might not appreciate that comment. I know when I was doing Polaroid transfers 'back in the day' I WANTED my photos to look like paintings...that was the goal, really.

I certainly don't think it's an insult...not by a long shot! :) And I Iove your photograph above...and it really does look like a beautiful painting! And lol at "in case of any questions or "can you help me get this into my car" requests"...I hope you got that request!

"Wow, it looks like a Painting"

Honestly, the only part of that compliment that matters to me is the "Wow". Beyond that, the viewer is encouraged to put their personal spin on any of my images. If I've got the 'wow', the rest is pure gravy. :-)

Rich, your 'Glacier Reflections' looks like a million bucks, and is totally wow-worthy, as is the 'Wet Deck' image, which I also saw yesterday.

It depends.
What was your goal when you were painting, or photographing ?
Photorealism takes an amazing amount of skill - I love it.
But there is a school of thought that says " Why ? "
Let painters paint painterly to take the best advantage of their medium.
I say do what you enjoy, and and appreciate when others do too.
Glacier is fabuolous. It looks like a photograph blending down into a painting. : )

I guess what I'm now looking fro is someone that paints in a "Photo-realistic" manner and her what they think.

Gene,

I certainly can't paint or even draw for that matter, but that's not the question here. Are artists that paint in a realistic way, glad to hear that phrase, or do they shutter a bit? And I agree, it's much easier for a painter to produce good photos, than vice versa,

Rich

Comments that my Paintings, look like Photographs or that Photos look like paintings are welcome.... As I try to make my paintings look Photo-realistic, and my Photographs look like Paintings. Sometimes though some have accused me of saying a work was a painting, and they insisted it had to be a photograph. If you can do photo-realistic paintings and you can make Photos look like paintings, they should be accepted as what they are.

For decades would go into the Fine Arts Museum in Boston once or twice a month and examine paintings closely, at times spent about an hour, just sitting looking at a painting. Then getting up and examining the detail closely.... Thinking back, many of the Old Masters did what we call Photo-realistic Paintings when camera's did not exist. Then, came a period when color film became available artists stopped, it seemed to me they did not want their paintings, mistaken for photography. It seemed a shame, for Artists who paint, could create the scenes that I created, leaving out things like telephone poles, garbage cans or things Id rather not have in my Photos. Retouching something so large during the days of 35mm film was not possible. Now, today with Photoshop we can remove what I object to more easily, so always do so... doing so may make Photographs look more like painting.



Personally, believe any Photographer could paint, just because they believe they can not, does not mean they could not. Advanced amateurs have a LOT of knowledge about art. Many times they can produce some types of photography better than a Professional. When a Photography Judge, was told we should judge amateurs stricter than professionals, as they had more time to focus on the subject, and could take the time to get it a right. They can do like I do, going back to the Grand Canyon, year after year since 1970, four or more times a year. Spending one to three weeks there.

The professional is always under a deadline, has to do their best with the time constraints, many times under the worst conditions....

The Photographer only need to learn HOW to use the tools that artists use, get some basic instruction in mixing colors, etc. then PRACTICE, like they practiced their Photography. Use the tools until they become part of their hands, vision, etc. Many advanced amatuers know more about composition than a lot of amateur artists. If they have gone to seminars in photography, do the same attending seminars with artists whose style they like.

Think about it, for decades thought the it was not possible for me to paint either, but Nadine kept after me for decades, finally watched some DVDs Yarnell made on the basics of mixing color, and dove in to get my feet wet. Nadine could not believe how good my first painting was. It was all the background in Photography, and color processing where I had to learn to use colored filters to control color in prints. Try it, you may find that you really enjoy painting. I get into it using not just brushes or Palette knives, but my fingers. The satisfaction of hanging your finished painting on the wall, is as great as hanging your best photograph. Check Yarnell's DVDs he is a very good teacher..

I am often told my drawings "look like photos" the only time I take offence to it is when people assume I didn't draw it. I think all types of art is beautiful not just the realistic art. I myself have some artwork that is more realistic looking that I in fact have drawn and have been accused of not. So to answer your question the fact that someone's takes the time to comment or enjoy my work is compliment enough but mentioning it looks like a photograph depending on the work it definitely is a nice compliment and appreciated but not something I always aim for. This is an example of my work that I have been told looks like a photo

"Wow! that flower looks so real i thought it was plastic"... +>))

I get the same thing on some of my paintings. I try to be painterly, BUT, I have a hard time achieving that.
My pastels do look like photographs and I have people tell me that all the time. At first I was embarrassed about the comments,
now I'm happy to get any comment.









Rich!!!! your art work is beautiful.

JAXINE your work is gorgeous!

Thank you Sheena, I have never been able to do fur like you do. fantastic art work.

Rich, I hope you sold your beautiful art at that show. WOW!!

I agree, enjoy getting compliments on your art.

JAXINE thank you coming from you that means a lot ...as for the fur texture (coloured pencils) is my weapon of choice as for Rich all of his stuff is wonderful ...the above is particularly awesome.

Jaxine,

The image hangs in our dining room as we speak! Good news/bad news! My broadband isn't so "broad" tonight, so I'll be signing off until 2013!

Rich

To me, it's a naive compliment, but a compliment. It means, if you're a painter, that you do very detailed work, and have very accurate proportions and perspective, which can be good.
For a painter, it means that you've applied a gratuitious (interesting?) filter, or perhaps worked to eliminate unnecessary detail, and looked for shots with good composition and good color, so that could be good or bad.
Personally, I appreciate painting for all the things that I cannot do, but would like to, and photography for all the things that I can do well, if I work at it.

Great photo Rich, and loved reading about your photo in the exhibition. I realise it is not your first, but well done, you're out there, it is inspiring. Anyway, good question. i did a pastel portrait just recently and a few lookers on, including the buyer, mentioned little things that weren't exactly right, I found myself asking, do you think it looks like the couple, 'Oh yes definitely them', so i had to keep saying well, it's not supposed to be a photograph, and the more i tried to make it look exactly like them the more I felt that i was moving away from my intention.
Now, saying that, some of my favourite paintings have been so like a photograph that I have been blown away....also, i love how your photograph, which I could have mistaken for a watercolour, ...is. I was going to say poetic...but, that's true for many photographs...but you have got me thinking! maybe its the person behind the camera, that we are really talking about...what do I mean by that....not quite sure....but I think you should take it as a compliment.....but i can see why you had to put them right....it is a photograph.....with a difference...maybe..?
My point...was your intention to make it appear like a watercolour? If not, then be pleased that your PHOTOGRAPH, took on another form, to some....

I'll accept and am honored by compliments for either my paintings or photography. And for the cartwheels when I was much younger. lol

First of all Rich your Glacier is a very fine piece of work and well deserves the compliment of being mistaken for a painting even though I assume your intention wasn't to deliberately produce that illusion. The fact that the image is raw and doesn't appear to have been computer manipulated is even more commendable.

As a painter who has never taken a decent photograph in his life I consider it easier to paint a picture that can be mistaken for a photograph at first glance than vice versa. I don't particularly set out to ape photography, my paintings just tend to develop that way from stage to stage.

Whilst I greatly admire SOME digital works what I find deplorable is the practice of a number of members here on FAA deliberately misrepresenting obviously computer generated images as bona fide paintings in an effort to demonstrate skills which they don't have.

Here is one of my offerings from about 25 years ago in Acrylics on nylon sailcloth.

Maria,

Thank you for your words. Certainly, not my intent to go "trolling for compliments", but will save them all, in a small box, under the bed!

This image, has been to all my shows and openings and I have never sold a single one, not even a smaller version. I catch people looking at this image, up on the wall and they almost all, just stare and explore different parts of the image and I know they are enjoying this image and maybe more than any others of mine, but no sales, which might be a good topic for another thread," Strong images of yours that have never sold!" !!!

And when I took this image and really any image that I create, I don't think "this will look great, just like a painting", but it's all about how I feel, when I look through the viewfinder and know that this will be a very good image, on it's own.

And the reason that I did inform some people at the gallery, that it was a photo, not a painting, was more to "educate" them, that images could be created with a camera, that could stand next to and up to, beautiful paintings. I don't remember what my other 2 smaller pieces were, maybe a wild Mustang and a flower, but they were obviously photos. I was in a room that was totally paintings and drawings and the Curator had chosen this room for my image, because "it belonged there", which I also took as a compliment.

Shasta, I too, accept all forms of compliments, whether intentional or not and I also accept all forms of credit cards too !!LOL

Mike, great work! And this image is basically what it looked like when I captured it, except for some saturation and sharpening. There was also some "detritus" floating on the surface, a few feathers and such, that I removed. And the reason I mentioned earlier, that it would be easier for a painter to take a good photo, then vice versa, is that good painters already have the basics down, especially, composition and form and just need to learn the mechanics of the camera. I'm not saying ALL photographers can't paint and all painters CAN take good images.

Good discussion here folks, thanks!

Rich

Woohoo....you look so spiffy, Rich! Happy New Year/avatar !

Happy new year everyone!

I didn't read all the posts on this thread, so just commenting on rich's OP.

In the 1700's before photography, painters were judged at their ability to paint accurate details. People wanted their portraits to look like a "photograph". All the other masters were still considered great for their techniques such as impressionism (Monet),pointillism, abstract, sfumato (Davinci),cubism (Picasso),

But when someone wanted a portrait they wanted it to be an exact replica. "a photo" in essence.

Today anyone can snap a photo, and with digital software everyone can create a professional looking photo. we are starting to come full circle and give kudos to those that can accurately take a photo and turn it into a "painting" reminiscent of the old masters.

Everyone can take a picture of your child, but very few can create a portrait painting of your child. And the few with that talent command a price the average person is not willing to pay.

Someone that can transform a picture into a "painting" in a very realistic traditional looking way is the next best thing. In this context, creating a photo to look like a painting is a compliment. Essentially saying " you have the skill to make this photo look like something that took a traditional painter to do."

In the opposite the compliment to a painter is also true. Saying "you created a painting so detailed and real that it looks like a photo".

In both cases its a well received compliment. The exception being if one were going for a painting that looks abstract and not like a photo, or a photo that was inadvertently over processed and ended up looking like a painting when the intent was the former. However,

In most cases the intent of the artist comes through and one can determine how the creator wanted the final piece to look. and complimenting either way is well taken.

--Brad

Ms V.

I'm going to look up "spiffy" in the dictionary and if it means really old, I'm gonna be really upset!!!

LOL!

Out with the old and in with the older!

Rich

Hey Rich, maybe the people that were visiting the exhibition were hoping to buy a painting, and although they found a lot of interest in your image, it was a photograph; not what they were hoping to purchase...YES, there are some buyers like that. Sadly. next time, don't try and educate them and see what happens. I would have done the same as you, and I would have bought it because of how it made me feel,and I would have felt that I was cheating them if I didn't tell them that it wasn't a painting, but I am beginning to look at the whole sales thing a bit differently, it seems...after me saying that!!! But some people feel so strongly about the different media that it could affect their buying. Just a thought.
maybe you should be asking painters that if they went out to buy a painting and found a great image that turned out to be a photograph, would they still buy it? Same question just more to the point.

I actually hate it when someone tells me "I thought it was a photo" . To me that means they have somehow been taught or learned to equate quality with realism. I do both mediums and have been in national shows for both. But they are distinct and require each their own talent. I don't think they belong together in a show.

Are they each viable mediums? Yes. But they cannot and should not be judged as equal mediums on any level. I also don't expect one of my sculptures to win an award at a watercolor show.

I love it when someone says "that doesn't look like a photo" because that is the whole point of my photography, photos that don't look like photos with no digital manipulation. I much prefer that to someone who says they like my "art" or "image" because at that point I'm not sure they actually realize that it is an unaltered photo. I think what makes my art different from a lot of abstract art is the fact that they are actual photos and not paintings or vector art, and darned hard to actually capture.

But I also know I'm extremely aware of the minor distinctions of what I'm talking about as it pertains to my art/photography and I don't actually hold it against anyone for not being so into my art on first glance to really examine the background theory of what I'm doing.

I usually just focus on the WOW portion of the comment myself :) If they say it looks like a painting or it doesn't look like a photo that is just a little icing on the cake.

Here is an example of a couple of mine that I particularly think don't look like photos

Tony,

You're the first person here to make a strong and determined statement!

" But they cannot and should not be judged as equal mediums on any level."

And this was what I was waiting for, some point made, by a painter, saying that photography and painting aren't equal and shouldn't be considered equal.

How do you back up this response? Why aren't they equal? Is one less than another? And how?

Rich

I don't think they can be judged as equal mediums, simply because they are not, however, if the outcome is an outstanding work of art, and the photographic piece moves/interests me more than the painting, then I have to go with my heart. I would be a buyer who would ask, all the nitty gritty questions like, how long did it take you, did you organise the shot, was the intention for it to look a watercolour or was it down to serendipity. If the answer was it took 30 minutes, no organisation involved, just years of experience, took a chance and it turned out great, no photoshopping, unlike the painting next to it, whose artist tells me that it took 2 years to finally finish, was on a 6ft canvas, whose frame she built herself ( been there done that) ruined her floor with a turps spillage, only finished it the day before the exhibition and was too late for an express carrier to take it the 6 hrs journey, so she drove in middle of night with reluctant partner, slept in long vehicle stops, but did see beautiful starlit skies, as couldn't sleep, etc etc etc,( this appplies vice/versa) haha....would this effect the final choice...no! I suppose I just see the equality in the artist's eye. I have probably gone way off track....maybe the curator saw the outcome before the medium, although i feel that this may have affected the buyers response...exhibiting together.
The complement goes to the artist no matter what their choice of medium...even though I respect the differences....

Like I said in the previous post. They are distinct and require each their own talent. One is not less than the other, like a quantitative mathematical formula, rather they are unique mediums and should not be judged one against the other. In a large show there are normally awards for 1st and 2nd so on. How can a juror(s) properly and adequately judge one against the other?


I consider some of my photography as good as some of my scratchboard or sculpture. But they are not equal. And hopefully never will be.

People will say that is biased. But even in our judicial system we are not judged by experts or paid jurors but by our peers. For me, the medium becomes the peer.

Has nothing to do with value, efficacy, popularity, or the verisimilitude of the subject matter.

I think we are agreeing on most of above. Nothing is equal. ' I suppose I just see the equality in the artist's eye' probably wrong wording....I suppose i see the striving of expression through chosen medium, and the success, via a work of art that materialised onto canvas, photo paper, in clay, etc etc. and moved the looker, through the artist's vision.
Tony, i would like eto understand more what you mean by,

For me, the medium becomes the peer.

Has nothing to do with value, efficacy, popularity, or the verisimilitude of the subject matter.

@Rich, you answered your own question.


'And when I took this image and really any image that I create, I don't think "this will look great, just like a painting", but it's all about how I feel, when I look through the viewfinder and know that this will be a very good image, on it's own'.

When i read this I didn't think about the camera, if you were using a paintbrush, a lump of clay etc, I just knew that you had a vision/feeling and you tried to capture it!

I guess the "wow" mean its a compliment from the viewer point.
But if the comment comes from another painter "I think your painting looks like a photograph", maybe it doesn't sound so good then. The tone really makes the difference.
On the other hand, I believe most photographer take it as a compliment when you say their photograph looks like a painting!

@ Maria: The intent of my post was not aimed at anything you said, rather I was responding to Rich. Nevertheless:

"Tony, i would like to understand more what you mean by,"

For me, the medium becomes the peer.

There are enough variations when it comes to photography now that it really seems unnecessary to compare it to a painting in any respect.
Weigh photographs against themselves rather than other mediums. They can stand on their own merit and no longer need that litmus of authenticity.

That's why I was confused then :) It doesn't matter to me being 'aimed at' even though that wasn't the case. I don't take things personally here in these discussions. It just didn't follow what you were saying, right below my response. But that happens all of the time. I was genuinely interested in your comment. I agree also about the range of variation now in photography and its interest seems to be more prominent now, maybe, ( done no research mind) than painting!
Rich hope you don't mind this inclusion.

A poem inspired by Rich Franco’s latest Discussion on photography.

Rare, Bare, But Simply There!

I turned a corner
And there it was!
Bare at midnight!
Simple, not going anywhere, bathed in moonlight
and some sparks from fireworks.
Some branches in shadow, some curves, bluish,
Creases, pink, like a baby’s skin.
This towering piece of wood
Just stood there,
A work of art,
Gawking at me,
Like I was plain stupid!
I almost bowed,
But thought better of it.
Instead,
I remembered I had this heavy awkward box on a strap
In my hand,
Cumbersome thing,
I almost screeched for a paintbrush, more comfortable,
And a tube of paint, that would flow from the tube to the canvas,
Or a lump of clay, to feel each curve and splay of new born leafed branches
Glowing, in the whispering light.
But, I had only the box, the camera, which I love and hate
But lately my best mate.
The dials meant nothing suddenly
As I observed the tree, its poise, the light,
Its soft summer skin soaking up all I could see and all I couldn’t see
But felt was there,
Maybe laughing at me,
I didn’t care,
I just knew,
I had to capture you,
You wonderful thing in nature.
Click!

Maria Disley 2/2/20113

Maria,

Beautiful poem!

Rich

the thing of it is painting is the standard to which all else is based...

I was present at a critique, where the "critic" was asking the artist what was the purpose of her painting. It was a study of cherry blossoms on the tree branch that was so beautifully rendered it looked like a photograph.
"I wanted to make it look realer than real". was her response.
I can't recall what his response was, but he was NOT a fan of "photo realism". I think he could have been much more diplomatic and at least found something positive to say about it, though.
It all boils down to personal taste, I'm afraid.
Your example Rich is stunning and yes, very much resembles a painting.
Personally I like photography, I like photo realism and I like painterly-paintings. Because they all require a creative process I can appreciate, as an artist.
Compliments of work well-done, whatever medium is the "icing on the cake".

RJ,

For now, it may be, but in the future, maybe not! In 100 years from now, will people even paint? Why? People can now "digitally paint", can you imagine in 100 years what will be available?

We may be looking at another example of technology, replacing a time old practice and moving on to a new and "cleaner", maybe painting today, is what the "typesetter machines,typewriters" of the past are now?

The capture of an image, by a digital device, may be around a lot longer than painting will be in the future!

Food for thought!

Elizabeth, photography for me, is no different than painting for you. In my case, the images are all out there,waiting for me to find them. For you the images are there,but mostly in your creative mind and are just waiting to see which brush, which tube of paint, you'll use to release them!

Rich

If one wished to be anal about it ;)...

A "photograph" can never look like a painting.
Once a photograph goes through the PS filters/manipulations etc. in order to have a painted look....it's no longer only a "photograph".

A painting which is deatailed enough to be mistaken for a photo...is always....just a painting.

I like to think of the photo as a "capture" and a painting as a "release". That way I can be oral about it.

I think straight ahead painting has taken a severe hit in recent times with the over stimulation our media machine churns out and basic lack of sophistication in our middle class.. Painting however will never be completely dead, it's a discipline that can not be replaced by technology ... There will always be lost wandering time travelers who will come to us with a brush in their hands without even knowing why....

Tru-dat RJ

RJ how true, you've hit the nail on the head, the sheer physical joy of painting and creating an illusion with the most simple of materials does in the main require quite a bit of hard work and discipline.I would go so far as to say that skills often taking many years to acquire let alone master can give one much more enjoyment that the less strenuous methods of making images can't quite provide.

In my youth for two years I worked as a fireman on the footplate of steam locomotives and unless one has done it the sense of achievement and pride one would feel when rolling into a station on time after a 100 mile trip because one had made it happen by shoveling coal into the firebox is difficult to explain. But WHAT a feeling it was, and however hard the trip the fireman would make sure he was leaning nonchalantly out the window looking for all the world to the public on the platform that it had been a piece of cake! Nowadays electric or diesel powered locomotives do the pulling where the only effort required is moving the lever a notch, still a skillful and highly responsible job but the whole romance is gone and the pride of being a footplateman hasn't quite the same kudos as in the days of the steam railway.

That's what painting is to me, it probably is the hard way but I love it and the pride I feel by taking a blank canvas and covering it with MY daubs of paint in that tactile way so enjoyable and rewarding.

Nice thought RJ, that unknowingly, someone in the future, presuming painting had died out, found themselves wanting to desperately make marks with some implement, on a rock again maybe, if there are any left! And find that they have discovered a new way of expressing themselves and the world which they live in. Wow ! I'd like to wonder what those marks would be.

Mike, think you have a point about the romance, and the hard work, although many photographers can tell a story about the years of hard work as photographers, I expect.
This is just an extract from a photographer, unknown, but quotes from prominent photographers and painters might make us see things from other artists.....anyone got any?


IMAGE CREDITS SHOW MAP
I miss the ritual of putting a fresh roll of film into my camera: the satisfying click of the shutter and the winding sounds as I manually advanced to the first frame - ready for action.

Last night I tripped over to the Parkes Camera Club to chat about the good old days of black and white film photography. I pulled out a few old favourite shots of mine taken over the years including this snap. I also brought along my old cameras as a bit of a show-and-tell.

Anticipation

I enjoy the convenience of modern digital imagery. Yet I feel incredibly nostalgic every time I pull out my old rangefinder or twin lens reflex film camera. I remember the times when I was patient enough to take a photograph and wait for hours, days or even months to reveal the results in the darkroom.

But now it's all about the immediacy and the instant gratification of seeing an image on a small LCD screen just moments after it is captured. There is little mystery now. One can instantly check if the image was successful just at the touch of a review button.

Limitations

I believe that working with a finite resource challenges one to make the most of it. I was often confined to shooting only 24 or 36 frames before having to change to another film roll.

The expense was also an added motivator to make every shot count. My grandmother once likened my frequent and rapid photography habits to 'burning through money.'

These days it seems so convenient to quickly shoot hundreds of photos on an inexpensive memory card that only needs to be bought once. However I find only a tiny percentage of my digital images eventually making it to print, making this a dangerous practice if I were to lose my hard drives.

Simplicity

I mostly used black and white film. It was cheaper than colour and I could process it myself. I love its contrast and the attention given to light and shadow without the distraction of colour.

However, these days when I display monochrome images - shot on digital or film - it can confuse some people. An image devoid of colour looks archaic and can give the impression it was taken decades ago, even if it was actually photographed just last week.

I wonder if I'm confusing the younger digital-only audience when I tell them that I once had to take my colour films to the local chemist for processing. I can only imagine some of them pondering why the pharmacist also specialised in printing photographs

@ Lawrence,
'A "photograph" can never look like a painting'

Rich's photo does look like a painting! True, it's not a painting, but it does look like one.

'Once a photograph goes through the PS filters/manipulations etc. in order to have a painted look....it's no longer only a "photograph".


Does a painting that has someone ride a bike over it to manipulate different marks become something more than a painting? Or am I being anal?

http://121clicks.com/articlesreviews/photography-quotes-from-famous-photographers

Pls go to this link. You've probably heard most of these quotes before but there may be one that makes you say, Aah!

As for painting;

"I foresee it and yet I hardly ever carry it out as I foresee it. It transforms itself by the actual paint. I don't in fact know very often what the paint will do, and it does many things which are very much better than I could make it do" - Francis Bacon, 1963

"To draw is to make a shape and movement in time." - Stuart Davis, 1951

"Painting is by nature a luminous language." - Robert Delaunay


Are there similarities between what the photographer and painter think, react, and does the resulting image matter if it looks painted, is painted, looks like a photograph, is a photograph?

Maria,

I think my statement that painting, as we know, may be a lost art in 100 years or so, was overlooked or even discounted. Much like using a typewriter or setting type, before that painting may someday be lost.

But I think photography, and more correctly, digital photography, will be here in the future, in some form, the capturing of an image, using electrons or whatever.Not because it any better, just easier and that's how technology goes.

We can now "paint" using touch screens, and we also have 3D printers and some day, in the very near future, they will meld together and create 3D painting, oils,acrylics,etc. that will have all the characteristics of an original painting.

Of course, there will be painters, acyually using some type of paint in my future, but they will be considered "old fashioned" and kooks!

The question is why would anyone in the future go to the trouble of getting "messy", when they can just create, anywhere, at any time, anything?

Rich

@Maria... "Rich's photo does look like a painting! True, it's not a painting, but it does look like one."

Yes, I know....But the point I was trying to (analy ;) make...is that..it is not a "photograph" that is looking like a painting...it's now something other than a "photogaph" in the true sense of the word.

But a painting...no matter how real or like a photo it may look...is a painting.

So...The painting looks like a photo...But the photo becomes something else in order to look like a painting.

It's a purity thing...get it? ;))

the image, of something, already is escalating in replacing the tactile reality of something, this is something I find very interesting, not just with materials but also people. Doesn't matter so much what you think, feel, get emotional about, do you fulfill the criteria, can you tick the boxes, on paper. I have seen so much claptrap on paper with no real evidence of a person being able to fulfill the criteria, that it beggars belief. But keeping to the question. Messy is tactile, moreso than buttons/keypads or whatever will replace them. Flipping book pages, sorting through real photographs, all being deleted and limiting our natural sense of touch and smell.
I imagine if I ever have grandchildren, when i tell them how every piece of clothing I owned had some dab of paint on it, or how the fumes from painting mediums used to fill the house, or how when i had been immersed in a drawing or painting and then took a break, only to see in the mirror a face daubed with charcoal smudges and oil colours, and my hair streaked with paint when the canvas had fallen and i had tried to save it and landed in the scene, literally. Funny reminds me of the other week when My son returned from Italy and he and his girlfriend had bought me a feather quill pen from Venice. I said I would happily write letters with it. I did, but i was covered in dark pink ink, had to scrub my fingers to get it off. But, it took me back to junior school when we learned handwriting with a fountain pen, the ink sitting in a hole at the top of the desk, which had a lid which you kept all of your books under. Then that reminded me of my father's beautiful handwriting.
Working in a college, I see students get so excited about technology, flipping open their i-pads, which will replace text books in our college beginning this year, and its good that they are excited about something, that they see as the future, we can't halt them and say do it our way, but still I wonder about the reduction of creating by hand, labouring with something, and learning on the journey through mistakes and serendipity, but whose to say that that won't occur in the up and coming technological minds.
Imagine a little kid coming home from school one day...hang on a minute, schools probably won't exist, but imagine them saying, excitedly, nanna, look what I've got on my hands, and it will be paint, or its closest replacement, something tactile, and worked at not just a visual replacement, which i am now thinking, we will need more advanced eyesight for. Our hands will become smaller,, maybe disappear altogether..haha..not so funny really...and our eyes will be huge...hey maybe aliens have been through those stages..............

@Rich
"Of course, there will be painters, acyually using some type of paint in my future, but they will be considered "old fashioned" and kooks!"

Ahhh! His eyes open.

"The question is why would anyone in the future go to the trouble of getting "messy", when they can just create, anywhere, at any time, anything? "

Darn, I thought sex was here to stay.

Very doubtful that painting will be a lost art at any time. Since the very beginning, a lot of painters have been painting, without ever expecting to sell their work. The majority give them away to relatives or friends and like Nadine has donated hundreds of paintings to charity to be auctioned off to raise money. There are a lot more artists painting today, than there ever were in the period we choose to call them "Masters." Many of them never sold a single painting, they painted because they were driven to paint.

Jokingly many today call themselves "Starving Artists" for centuries artists have barely supported themselves. Today their paintings are sold for more than they made in their entire lifetime, including any odd jobs they worked at to support themselves. Nadine loves to paint, she has been painting since she was about five, but never made a living at it though since we retired and she could paint full time has made more. She'll probably be painting until the day she dies.

Nadine has sold more paintings than Van Gogh did, he only sold one in his entire life. Sure, some paint to try to make money, its those who have had business training or Galleries that make the most, cause they sell a group of artists work. Some like Kinkade make a lot, but he was very good at business, and never painted all the work sold under his name. He had a group of artists doing work to be sold under his name. Woulld bet the majority of artists on FAA, would still paint if they never made a dime. They paint, because they love creating, because it is the most self satisfying thing they do....

Lawrence, thanks for trying to explain..but I'm not getting it...maybe its the heat 40 degrees here today and I can't concentrate, as its Black Saturday situation. But I will ponder over your point until I can make sense of it.

.it is not a "photograph" that is looking like a painting...it's now something other than a "photogaph" in the true sense of the word.

I could understand this if Rich had altered it to get the effect, but he states that this was the image straight from the camera. It is the original photograph that happens to look like a watercolour.

Infact there is more altering going on in a painting to make it look like a photograph.

Am I making sense? probably not :)

@Philip, thanks, yes, I get it that once the original has changed it becomes someething different, but Rich's image was not altered and so is a photograph, looking like a painting. Yeah???

@Bob and Nadine...but where do you think painting will be in 100 years from now?

so, are you saying that it only becomes a photograph when it is altered?

What is before it is altered..a snapshot maybe...? An isolated observation.
we/I need some photographers to define what a photograph is...or rather when is it a photograph and when is it not a photograph.

As far as the time machine of art..........100 years is not that long (Rich's suggested time span) but look what it is up against, technology moving at an extreme rate, faster than rubbing sticks together..:)) What can technology erase from the memory of tactile creativity in 100 years?

Lawrence,

If you have any of the medicinal herb you're smoking, like left over,dude, I'll drive over and get some!

A photograph is a photograph, if it isn't then what is it? It started as a photograph and was printed as a photograph. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....well you know what I mean.

Technology will allow people, who at this point can't paint, to paint! And it will only get better and easier and the generations to come will want easier stuff and painting and other forms of art will become replaced with things that are easier and faster,

Rich

Rich... ;)

I must be high...because I can't understand what's so hard to understand...as far as...what I said. lol

and I don't think I'm the only one high, here!!!! lol


Phillip…

I understand what your saying when you mentioned the pictorialists. And I agree...but anal says ;) they still “manipulated” the photo.

Let me try and understand this now...lol

The image in the opening post is a straight point and click photo from a camera...nothing was done to it. The subject matter happened to look like a painting and a photo was taken of said subject...yes?

If the opening image is a straight photo…with no manipulation…and the subject matter already looked like a painting…then the camera captured it.

When photographing something that looks like a painting…or cropping the subject in certain ways, angles, etc. and you shoot it…you will get a photo that looks like a painting.
Faa’s Skip Hunt does it all the time.

But to take…lets say…a portrait photo and make it look like a portrait painting…means you have to make it something other than a “photograph”.

@Rich
"Technology will allow people, who at this point can't paint, to paint! And it will only get better and easier and the generations to come will want easier stuff and painting and other forms of art will become replaced with things that are easier and faster, "

Rich you make such broad statements they have to be addressed.
Technology will only allow people to create not "Paint", even if the photo program is called "Paint".

The future Maria will allow us to store an image we see with our eyes in the computer chip, imbedded in our cerebrum, that will be standard issue for people. We will then bring the image home and "Print" it.

Okay, lets take a few steps back...to Lawrences comment.


A "photograph" can never look like a painting.
Once a photograph goes through the PS filters/manipulations etc. in order to have a painted look....it's no longer only a "photograph".

A painting which is deatailed enough to be mistaken for a photo...is always....just a painting.


Then Philip,


Lawrence, I know what you mean. I have images / digital works that originated through the use of a camera, but are no longer a photograph. But it's still possible for photography too, or a photograph that's still a photograph in the stricter sense, to be 'painterly' or like a painting. Like what the pictorialists were doing...


Lawrence is saying that it remains a photograph when altered but not just a photograph...ok i get that. I even get that a painting doesn't become a photograph as there was no camera involved.

and then philip goes on to say,
'But it's not a photograph because it's not altered ( photographs can still be photographs when altered. I would say that it's not the altering itself but more how much is being altered ).,

is it just me that's confused?
How about i say what i think a photograph is and then you may be able to get through to me better.

A photograph is the image caught by a camera. If the image looks remarkably like a watercolour, it is still a photograph not a painting. if it is altered in any way digitally, for example, it is still a photograph and more, maybe.

Phillip....Yes...the process in most cases...but...we will split the "points", Phillip. Because some pictorialists printed on paper with brush strokes...which I guess could be considered part of the process...;)

Maria... it's the "more" part that makes the difference.

There is no "more" part to the painting that looks like a photo...it's just a painting. ;)

Philip, when you said


But it's not a photograph because it's not altered ( photographs can still be photographs when altered. I would say that it's not the altering itself but more how much is being altered ).,

Did you mean, someone can't say, it's not a photograph because it hasn't been altered.............that would make more sense to me. But I don't know who would say that..have we really shot fwd so quickly to forget ( or am I totally ignorant) that a photograph is an image caught on camera, an image of a ' light drawing' Now there's another conundrum......if the first photographs were light drawings then aren't they more akin to painting than we might think?

Rich you have really started something here!!!!!

There is no "more" part to the painting that looks like a photo...it's just a painting. ;)

there's something in the painter in me that wants to disagree with this. Some of the Impressionists added sand to their beach scenes, i know it is not a technological altertaion, but its not paint or needs a brush. Also, painting for me is always more, changing direction, with brush strokes, fingers, knives, infact all kinds of implements. Painting isn't always just brush and paint.

Lawrence you have some wonderful work.

Thanks Philip...yes I get ya now.
So are we all on the same page?
Is Rich's photograph a photograph that looks like a painting.....and more to the point.....is that a good thing? :) Should he feel happy about it....and do you think it may have detracted those interested people that moved on after he explained that it was a photograph and not a painting.

Tony,

At times, I'm a Broad statement kinda guy!

"Rich you make such broad statements they have to be addressed.
Technology will only allow people to create not "Paint", even if the photo program is called "Paint".

You don't think, that in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years max, there won't be a "software" program, like Paint, on steroids, that will allow an average person to maybe point at some color chart, choose a "painting Master" choose a size of canvas and a theme and say go! And an image will be produced that will look EXACTLY like a masterpiece hanging in the Louvre?

We have ordinary people using cell phones today, grabbing an "effect" that would have taken hours in a darkroom and "publishing" their art around the World! I think we won't have to wait 5 years for something like what I just described. It won't of course be considered "Fine Art", by the educated, but will be created and sold by the masses. And after 10 or 20 years of this, then WHY get messy!!??

Rich

Ah! I'm getting closer to how you are thinking. And Yes,lets not forget the photographer.......! And so that 'something' and the photographer/artist produced a photograph which looks like a watercolour.

Rich, we need you to tell us...when you were taking the photo, did it look like a painting? I don't think it did as you were surprised at the viewers who kept referring to it as a painting. Can you remember what you thought...what attracted you to take such a photo?

Beautiful......:) Now I do understand that....thanks Philip.

I agree with Sydne also,added though, it is (Somewhat) a compliment when some have said some of my things are photographic, I really don't want to be, I tend to want a sense of realism mixed with humor and story telling and don't want to look like I copied a photo which I actually don't do since I usually have crappy photo's and have to imagine most of it lol, good food for thought I would say

Thank you, Maria...I appreciate it! ;)

RE: "Painting isn't always just brush and paint.

yes, of course....

Btw: but most impressionistic paintings don't receive remarks such as..."wow, that looks like a photo". ;)

Everything I said was based on a painting being technically painted in a traditional way, but detailed or painted in such as to resemble a photo. Therefore..."it's just a painting" ;) ;)
As with photorealism.

I find the phrase, 'just a painting' of interest. Even more interesting that a painter as qualified as yourself is saying it. Just a painting makes me assume, and I may be wrong in doing this, that the painting has little worth in its creation, as in anything of the artist's senses being incorporated in the painting. Yes, if the intention is purely technical exactness, then, that is of even more interest. A viewer may be moved by this technically exact painting, .......i assume this happens a lot. When i am moved by a painting or photograph, i readily assume that the photographer/painter must have endowed/expressed something of his soul, for want of a better word into it. But maybe we only see ourselves in the paintings/photographs that we view!?

How many other artists say about their work...it's just a painting...it's just a photograph...this is just out of curiosity...i'm not sitting in juddgement..:)))

Maria...

"Just a painting" is a compliment to the painting in this context. It has achieved a "wow...that looks like a photo" response…when in reality...it's just a painting. ;)

When a photo receives a "wow...that looks like a painting"...the photo has gone through hoops or...
the photo is of a subject which looks like a painting, or...
the eye behind the camera has focused on certain colors/design/an angle/a crop that can resemble an abstract painting.

In order for a photographic portrait etc. to have the "painting look"...it must be manipulated (put through hoops) ;))...or...as Phillip pointed out...manipulate in the process.

The "process" of painting in detail is just one of the ways to paint a painting.

The “process” of taking a photograph gives you a photo…it’s the process used before printing it which gives you the painted look.

When one has the ability and the freedom to be able to really See, can, barring a physical handicap, enter and succeed in any discipline (Painting, Photography, Sculpture, Digital Art ,etc.),that one chooses. .... (edit) The only thing they have to learn is how to hold the appropriate tool.

It's all just Visual Manipulation.

An inner drive, will make the difference with those participating.

...painting

Sculpture-photo-abstraction

Of course, there will be painters, acyually using some type of paint in my future, but they will be considered "old fashioned" and kooks!

The question is why would anyone in the future go to the trouble of getting "messy", when they can just create, anywhere, at any time, anything?

Rich
That is why you''re not or ever will be a painter... you just don't get it...

"That is why you''re not or ever will be a painter... you just don't get it..." A big problem in web art. Everyone looks for a textbook definition and seems to miss out on having a "soul".

Thanks Robert…I tried to say that nicely.

RJ,Tony,

"Rich
That is why you''re not or ever will be a painter... you just don't get it..."

Ahh, the the photographer has been put in his place, it would seem?

But wait, maybe the table will turn?

What you both don't get, my friends, my gifted and passionate friends, is where our society, our people and our world is moving, because of Technology, capitol T. Do you see evidence that the younger generation is looking for "things to do" that are difficult, that take work/time to accomplish, and demand following strict guidlines to produce anything? If so, I would love to see examples. And Yes,Tony, this is a very broad statement! When was the last time this younger generation, wrote a letter? Read an actual book? Paid for and sat through a movie that wasn't totally special effects? Should I even bring up our own "Honey Bo Boo"? Don't you both see some cosmic shift happening, right now?

Is this the generation that you both see, that will carry on your passion for art? They won't be looking for short cuts? Something will change and overnight, things will get back to your/my generation's values? Can you show me some signs of this,perhaps?

Am I any less passionate about my art, because I use a device to create art? Is this what I think I'm begining to to hear? A crack in the wall? Something oozing out? Painting is everything and anything less, is less?

What will the world be like in 20 years time? Better? Maybe, some aspects of it, but will there still be a robust community of painters, people that actually use paint? I doubt it, because why! They'll be clubs for people like us, small groups of people, gathered together, like minded artists, using old tools, brushes,cameras, sharing images and then going home. Every once and a while, someone will see a "painter" out in the park, pulling a wagon with his art supplies, setting up and creating ART and the young passersby will comment,"look honey, that man's a painter!" and the young girl will look up to her father and say,"Daddy, what a painter?" I may be exaggerating a bit with the timetable, but you get my point.

The same with photography and other arts, why bother,right! They will be able to go home and turn their "wall on" and say " Monet" and the wall will have an exact replica of the Money of their choice, down to the brush marks and lines.

Because you are passionate about your art, you shouldn't close your eyes to the future,

Your Fellow Artist,

Rich

"Painting is everything and anything less, is less?"

No...
it's what drives a person to live their life painting which is the "everything". And that inner desire will be in humans throughout our existence on this planet. IMO

that said...

Yes..I agree...society is in danger of a "honey bo boo" cosmic shift. But the passion to create art with paint will still have its place. ;)

Technology can only acquiesce to entropy in the very distant future. Painting is done with the body not just the mind. A brush stroke on a computer is a generated curve…a series of points. The brushstroke from an artists hand is the result of ir-reapeatable delineations of genes, bones, and blood. I do both mediums well. I know there is a difference that you, Rich, will only understand when you do both mediums.

Regardless of any of this, we don't live in the future, it's a moot point. Everything we do is in the past.

By the way Rich, nice imagery, and I am glad to see you give credit where it is due !

Rich, my social instinct is last, I need something tangible that is made with my bare hands to feel like I even exist..I could give a ratz ass what or where society is going or doing... I'm not in it for them...

Why paint? Why do it the hard way? If you have a copy of photoshop, you can make 10 color variations of a birdhouse with a cat sitting on it in the back yard. Then you could spend most of your time doing sales, marketing, social networking and make lots of money.

Rich,
Your cynicism speaks of having teenagers...

Younger generations are not so out of touch as you think, when my son went to college the first thing he wanted for his apartment was a painting, not a poster. For Christmas, my kids (in their 20s) gave books to everyone, and received many in return. My niece wanted stationary because she writes letters, by hand. Technology only can take you so far, and not one artist here is saying that they won't use the future technology in some way, but it wont replace painting with pigment.

Art is not dead in the world, and closing your eyes to it will not make it go away...



P.S. you mention movies, Did you see the low-technological award winner The Artist?

Rich Wrote "Am I any less passionate about my art, because I use a device to create art? Is this what I think I'm begining to to hear? A crack in the wall? Something oozing out? Painting is everything and anything less, is less?

Why would you even want to have a classic passionate artistic temperament? They're mostly a bunch of ruminating, elitists that most people disdain anyway... What is wrong with just being a photographer who does good work or a designer that make images people want made into posters.. Why do so many want the tittle?

I am a painter that loves to see all art. I feel its all about what the artists goal was. Do you want your painting to look like a photo? Do you want your photo to look like a painting? Artist have to remember That when non artist say things to you it is them trying to learn. Sometimes non artist just want to fit in wile looking at art. I find if I talk to much about my art it takes away from the work so as artist showing are work it can be frustrating at times we have to remember we are like windows in a dark house showing the light to others. You did good letting them know what window they look through. I think your art is beautiful. People do not always know if my art is oil or acrylic ect...:)

Lawrence, yes there will be "the passion to create art with paint will still have its place", but with much smaller numbers, which is my point!

Tony, I agree with what you say, just that there will be less artists feeling those emotions in the future, who choose to use actual paint! Think od "touch screens" today and how they will improve in even 5 years! "Regardless of any of this, we don't live in the future, it's a moot point. Everything we do is in the past." No, not really moot. Our society is changing as we speak, it has to to live, but by not addressing the changes, or at least accepting that there are changes, seems to be the "old head in the sand" method.

RJ, see above! What and how you feel is personal and I'm speaking about the big picture, not Rich or Tony or RJ, but humanity, for a start.

Mark J., HUH? Over my head I think. Was there a tongue in someone's cheek!??

Penny, years ago there were roaming teenagers here, grazing and moving about, but they are gone now. As I mentioned just above, I'm not concentrating on individuals that are following the artist's path, but a generation of people. "Art is not dead in the world, and closing your eyes to it will not make it go away..." and I'm not suggesting that, just that the vehicle used to create art, may not be paint, but electrons, in the near future. Children in schools are now using iPads to draw art, why would they later in 10 or 20 years, go look for a tube of paint? Won't happen, on the big picture scale I'm talking about here.

The "Aritst" is on my Netflix list, but whether I've seen it or not, isn't part of this discussion, the question is, how many younger people went and paid for tickets and saw this movie, or went next door and watched "Jack Ass 2"? That's the question!

RJ, " Why would you even want to have a classic passionate artistic temperament" Pretty sure I didn't ask for it and I'm sure, you and all the other passionate artists here didn't either, almost a burden, I'm sure I could have been much better off, if I had pursued a "Real Job"!!!

Patricia, thanks for joining this discussion and thank you for the compliment and back atcha, very nice!



Rich

Wow! That discussion really took off! Great reading.
Philip I am still reading your link on painting and photography....very interesting...thanks for posting.
i also liked this Edward Weston quote ...i could really relate to it....more the active mind than body...I love to paint but I have to admit the time to set everything up and drying times etc...is no problem some of the time....but generally...I feel I can release my ideas quicker using a camera.....an artistic TOOL, that has almost become like an appendage :)) yes, there are times when the image i want won't be relayed by my eye through the lense, and feel more confidently, that it could be by the messy alternative, andthe choice frustrates me. Photography has given me more to do ...now I have to compromise my time even moreso.....but do it I will....because its exciting and full of serendipity as well as formalism...in other words, at my hands full of surprises....

Photography suits the temper of this age - of active bodies and minds. It is a perfect medium for one whose mind is teeming with ideas, imagery, for a prolific worker who would be slowed down by painting or sculpting, for one who sees quickly and acts decisively, accurately. - Edward Weston

Rich i think your photography oozes passion...........a passion no different in essence than that which i feel when I am looking for something through the lense...looking not just with my eye, but mywith my whole being ( well most of the time) also when my painting is begining to speak to me and we are on the same page, both artist and medium leading, racing even for the prize....which has no name...just a feeling.....just as you may experience when you press the button and you just know that the image will be almost exactly as you hoped....as close as you can get....

Kids!
I don't know what's wrong with these kids today!
Kids!
Who can understand anything they say?
Kids!
They a disobedient, disrespectful oafs!
Noisy, crazy, dirty, lazy, loafers!
While we're on the subject:
Kids!
You can talk and talk till your face is blue!
Kids!
But they still just do what they want to do!
Why can't they be like we were,
Perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?
Kids!
I've tried to raise him the best I could
Kids! Kids!
Laughing, singing, dancing, grinning, morons!
And while we're on the subject!
Kids! They are just impossible to control!
Kids! With their awful clothes and their rock an' roll!
(Lee Adams..1960)

After the best Art education possible in 1960, at the age of 25 I was deeply involved in Architecture...And not doing what I had always wanted to do ,..even to this day..to be:

A PAINTER.....

..I never had that fire in the belly to be one

And when I come upon a true painter, with original paintings, with all the visual, the tactile, the smell and even the taste that permeates those pieces, I'm transported.

This happened when I was a guest in RJ's studio......Oh How I Envy that Man.!!

What a wonderful thing to say.....brought tears to my eyes...very moving...:))
Roger..sounds like you are a painter...at least at heart....

Roger in his wisdom has summed up what being a painter means to me, I had, still have, the fire in my belly to be a good one and perhaps one day I may be regarded as an artist by my peers. It is not for me to claim such a title anyway, taste and fashion come into play as well as education as to what Art may or not be, and so I am content to just soldier on in my naive artiness and only use the term on my Income Tax returns.

At the risk of boring my fellow members I'll return to my days on the footplate to illustrate a point.

In the eyes of the public and indeed our fellow railwaymen we footplatemen were regarded as the elite of the old steam railway. Although we were merely just part of the whole railway system because of the perceived romance and drama of the driver and his fireman working as a team the job itself had acquired a certain mystic aura. Naturally being part of an elite generated envy by those who had little idea of the very real dangers, sheer hard work and heavy responsibility that footplatemen paid for such kudos and so when diesel and electric power replaced steam few mourned the loss of this body of men. However the whole railway system itself seemed to lose something intangible when these easier methods of traction were adopted because the driver and his mate were reduced to one man with the status of a mere tram driver in the eyes of the public.

A bit of an over simplification I admit but call the railway system Art, footplatemen the painter, diesel traction the camera, tram driver the photographer and there you have whether we might agree with it or not the popular conception of our little world.

Roger, you honor me...Makes me want to get to work when I read your words..thank you for the inspiration ..RJ

I am fascinated by the amount of black and white in this thread, why can't we have both? paintings and photography and any new art meduim that is developed? Painting does not have to disappear because of the arrival of technology, to say so, might as well be saying; "Now that there is an easier way to make pictures of things, no one will want to do it the hard way"


As new technology for making art comes out, you can believe that the younger generations want the technology, to create their own art, not the art created by the new technology from someone else. If it is easier, more people will do it. Since they can't paint now, they will still want paintings they cannot create for themselves...

Sometimes my Goal when painting, is to make my paintings look as much like my Photos as Possible. In Photography, to make my Photos look as much like my Paintings as possible. Sometimes it is not, as it is a lot more work to paint so realistically, and seldom can get a price which pays for the time. When people find it difficult to determine which is which, then my goal is successful. When they recognize it as a Painting, it is also Successful.

The work either Painting or Photography stands on its own, if ONE person likes it, it is a success..... Some like it, others do not, artists do not live to please others, but if others like it, that is a bonus After all Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime, yet today he is considered one of the Masters.

All work sold on FAA, in reality is a digital, or photograph.
It may be a Photo of a painting or a photograph, but what we are selling are Photographs no matter what the subject may be. It really does not matter which, if someone likes the work you did, and buys it.....

As an artist, because it takes more work, Painters try to charge for the time. As a photographer, sometimes it take less time, so the charge is less. Some Painters work fast, finishing a painting in an hour or two. Some Photographers may take more time in creating their images, than some artists.... When working in a Darkroom, some photographers who are ARTISTS spend an entire day creating one image making dozens of test prints on various areas, before printing an 18x24 for an exhibition. Today on a computer you can do more in less time, but many who surprise people with the Photographs, do spend hours on one piece.

By selling on Fine Art America, it makes it easier to sell, reaching a much larger group of buyers... By selling Photographic Prints, an Artist of any kind can get paid a fair price for their time. Personally we charge less for Original Paintings, sell them faster as they are affordable, and sell more paintings. Many paintings can be done in a day, so we do not charge thousands for them. Most of them sell for less than one thousand dollars. We sell direct to the buyer, most of the time. Galleries double the cost to the buyer, Id rather just sell them for what Id get from the Gallery, and sell more, instead of having them hang in a gallery as long as they do... There is more self satisfaction selling it direct, for then we get feedback from the buyer.

But, on FAA we charge the same price for our work, regardless of a Painting or a Photograph for both are Prints...

Robert, I wonder if you would explain the idea of "painting". I don't think a lot of people get it. What makes one piece "painterly" and another paint by numbers?

Robert, I wonder if you would explain the idea of "painting". I don't think a lot of people get it. What makes one piece "painterly" and another paint by numbers?

If I might brake this down as simply as I can it would be: what is the difference between a fascial painter( or painterly) compared to an illustrator? ...

The illustrators main focus and objective being to depict something,.. This primary motivation can inhibit artistic growth and give the effect of a paint by numbers kind of look..It becomes more important to paint within the lines, literally and figuratively. I often struggle with trying to let go and not paint on purpose, to just slap it around with little conscious objective..

The fascial painter or painterly painter has broken free of these constraints or better yet never been concerned with them at all, there can be an accidental look to a stroke, or even a seemingly lack of effort.. Even when the painting is a portrait for instance there will be that juice, that visceral connection to the medium .. If you look at a Rubens sketch for example which are very representational, his strokes are like scratches, schmears and dabs, yet you can tell that the painter has looked deep into the soul of his subject...He paints with the mastery of ease..

Painterliness is a translation of the German term malerisch. It was used to standardize the terms being used by art historians to characterize works of art.
It is the opposite of linear, plastic or formal linear design.

An oil painting is painterly when there are visible brushstrokes, the result of applying paint in a LESS than completely controlled manner, generally without closely following carefully drawn lines. Works characterized as either painterly or linear can be produced with any painting media, oils, acrylics, watercolors, gouache, etc. Some artists whose work could be characterized as painterly are Pierre Bonnard, Francis Bacon, Vincent van Gogh, Rembrandt, Renoir, and John Singer Sargent. In watercolor it might be represented by the early watercolors of Andrew Wyeth.

In contrast, linear could describe the painting of artists such as Botticelli, Michelangelo, and Ingres, whose works depend on creating the illusion of a degree of three-dimensionality by means of "modeling the form" through skillful drawing, shading, and an academic rather than impulsive use of color. Contour and pattern are more in the province of the linear artists, while dynamism is the most common trait of painterly works.

The Impressionists and the Abstract Expressionists tended strongly to be painterly movements.
Both Pop Art and photo-realism, due to their dependence on photographic imagery, were characterized by an absence of apparent brushstrokes.

Painterly art often makes use of the many visual effects produced by paint on canvas such as chromatic progression, warm and cool tones, complementary and contrasting colors, broken tones, broad brushstrokes, sketchiness, and impasto. Some sculptors are considered "Painterly."

One of the best teachers we studied with, Louis Sylvia one of the top ten Marine painters in the world according to Who's Who, with paintings in major museums around the world, including the Louvre, advised us NOT to study art in College, he believed it destroyed creativity, said he had to struggle to overcome his training as a Commercial artist. As the main focus in most college courses in MA at the time, was to create Commercial artists.
Paint by Numbers probably came from the commercial product, where colors came in jars, and a canvas was numbered to put specfic colors in specific places. and you only were supposed to paint in between the lines. But personally when doing such paintings as a youngster, would always mix the colors where the met, not keeping them within the lines. Some times blurring the edges with my fingers and putting other colors where I wanted, instead of on the numbered area. :)

Mike, A good analogy. I think the romance and mystery has gone out of trains too, or railway stations as a whole. As kids we had to walk through our village in the surburbs of Liverpool,, which has also lost its romance and mystery, and head down a subway of echoes from the destined railway station at the other end, it was like going through a time tunnel, when the subway opend up to the station it was magic, and i suppose the waiting for the rumble on the tracks of the beginning of a journey, or sometimes just a shortcut through to the other side of the village.
You're right about the driver, then looking out of his window, seeming like the one person who had engineered and made the whole thing happen, being what the waiting passengers thought, it was like a painting and the driver/footplateman, the artist. He was always smiling and if not there was a look of satisfaction, pride, achievement on his face at delivering the train....on time.
Infact more than that......like it was his main aim for however long it took, and nothing else could distract him from it, we knew , even as kids, that the train driver had been in some kind of wonderland, that we would never experience. We/I only managed this through our own artistic pursuits.

This discussion, had me forget about time limits and trawl through my cupboard looking for examples of painterly photos, and came across not photos but drawings with a painterly approach.
When drawing, the pencil, pastel, often moves like a brush, and i feel that I am painting. My attempt, if I remember correctly( drawn in the early-late 90's) was the hope to get a close photographic feel, as that was my thinking then of how a portrait should be. This first one is of my father. I used a photograph and life study combination for this one, rendering my artistic licence to convey our relationship and what i knew of him, through the eyes. The second, my son, look at the painterly approach around the mouth, I used a photograph as a resource for this and tried to make it like a photograph, or snapshot. Thirdly, a self portrait in pencil, again, painterly around the mouth and doesn't look much like me, but i still remember trying to paint in pencil, as I did this, it was drawn from a mirrored reflection, and in a sense i suppose I must have tried for a photographic result, and lastly, a pastel drawing of the writer Thomas Hardy's second wife, copied from a book, an image which began life as a photograph. I am feeling a strong sense of photography, drawing, painting and artistic expression, just now as i describe each image, which I hadn't done before.

Here is an interesting reciprocal twist I just thought of. This was "Painted" using only photographic images between the sections.

Looks like we are revealing the strong connection between photography and painting in our own work because we are looking differently...through this discussion....as all good discussions should do....:))

Tony,

Nice image, but the question still stands, was any "paint" used to create this?

That's the "thesis" that I've been suggesting and supporting and you may have answered it just now with your example!

Thank you!

Rich

No, thats only one example out of thousands of images from those who paint using Oils or Acrylics in FAA. Daily, as the administrator of seven groups, am seeing hundreds of images of painting in watercolor, oils acrylics, and other media, that were manually painted on canvas. Just do a search for PAINTINGS at the top of your home page, and you will see page, after page, after page of Paintings. The reason that we see more photographs, than paintings, is that in the time that we can do a painting, we can create 100's of photographs.

As we are retired and travel by RV, up to about 12,000 miles a year, we can take photos during travels, but its not possible to set up a Studio Easel and Paint. But when get get back to our Home Base, in a campground, we stop taking photos and paint. We have each year over 5,000 images on photographs. But, there is a LOT more pleasure and self satisfaction in doing ONE painting than taking 5000 photos...

Now, personally became interested in art, because one of my Aunts and her Husband became quite famous as artists, in CA and other areas of the Art world. Ruth and Edgar Surdez. Ruth was a Painter and Sculptor, Edgar was mainly a Sculptor. They both have pieces in many museums. The state of CA bought several pieces of their work, and they are in the State House in Sacramento. Edgar with an other Sculptor, created with a team off students, the Huge Statue of Christ on a Mountain Top in Texas. Ruth has been honored with a series about her work on TV in California. She was given an Honorary Doctorate at Harvard, she studied art there. When she was 70, they flew her and a companion to Boston to speak and receive the degree. She and one of her pieces of work were Feature on the cover and an article in the magazine Women in the Arts, when a student in a college that bought her work, gave it credit for preventing her suicide. She had been headed to the dorm, saw the statue Blythe Spirit, read the plaque on it, and changed her mind.... Have never heard of any photo having such an effect on a person... would like to hear and see it if it did.

Now, three of my five children are painting, seven of my grandchildren so far, and all of my great grandchildren are painting. (My Grandfather had 72 Grandchildren, many of them paint.) So, in EACH generation, there are _more_ painters than the previous one. Many learn it is easier than most believe to paint. Personally believe every advanced amateur and Pro Photographer could paint if they had the desire, they just need to learn how to use the tools. That can be learned in a few weeks. Most already know color and composition... On the YouTube, there are thousands of videos about painting, created by many, many artists. Yarnells DVDs taught me a lot about mixing color. No, a LOT more of my decendents Paint, than produce Professional Quality Images... Yes they have cheap, snapshot cameras to keep memories of children. But out of all our relatives (we have a family website with 279 Brothers, Sisters, Uncles, Aunts, Nephews, Nieces, Cousins, second Cousins, etc on it) none of them became a "Photographer" but one niece and she also paints.... :)

Thousands are painting in the country, there are actually many more painting in the world today, than at any time in History, its growing, not dying out.. There are probably over 100 teaching classes in painting, Just in the state or Rhode Island, and many more in CA, due to a much larger population, and there are classes near you in every state.... . BUT, LIKE there are thousands of photographers today who never try to sell their work, these artists just give it away to relatives or friends and charities to auction to help organizations... During Katrina, to Sandy ..... EBay had and still has a policy of Donating all of their income on the sales of items, when the people selling them DONATE 100% of the profit from the items they sell. BOTH of us sell in Auctions our Original Paintings and Donate 100% of the proceeds to the Salvation Army... So all the Originals we have here, have been sold to help those in Disasters and others the Salvation Army works with. We also donate ten percent of our income, including our Social Security, to the Salvation Army....

Have serious doubts that my family or descendents will ever stop painting due to photography. (some say we multiply like rabbits)
Ive been taking pictures since 1936... and selling my work Professionally since 1942. Its what Ive done for a living. BUT, Painting is what we do for pleasure. When I take 100's of pictures, I may hang one out of 1,000 on the wall. While _each_Painting, hangs on the wall, until sold, and we have a few, we will Never sell. The walls are covered with paintings, placed about 4 inches apart. While ONE photo hangs on the walls, and even that is no permanent. Once a year or less it is changed for a different one.
There is a lot more self satisfaction in one finished painting, than over 5,000 photos that I take each year... Though many Rave over my images, it is the amount of work you put into it, that gives the satisfaction we get out of painting.
Photographers are no better or worse, than Painters or Sculptors and others in the arts. Many of us were even Photographers or just used a camera for snapshots BEFORE we became painters. Like I took photos for over 15 years, before creating my first painting... Many of us were not satisfied with photography, and now do both... and for us, Painting is a lot more satisfying then photography.

ANYONE can take an automatic camera, and shoot 100, 200, 300 images in a day and get something that will sell.... though I always use my Nikon Manually 95% of the time... Only at sporting events does it go on automatic, during the event. Then after the action is over, it returns to manual.

Here is one of my Photos:

No Rich. No paint was ever used to create that image.

The only point I made Rich, which I asserted from the onset of this discussion, is that both mediums are valid and unique and neither will die. My head has never been in the sand. I don't eschew technology. On the contrary, some of my work has been on the cutting edge of engineering and art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_(9-11_memorial)

Tony,

I'm not suggesting that "ART" will die or go away,just that some of the tools will change. There will always be painters and photographers, but in the future, painters may not use paint! And if that's the case, will they be called painters!

THAT'S been my point all along, technology will drive the way that art is created, in the future.

If DaVinci was alive today, don't you think he would be using all and every tool available to create his art? Of course he would! Every artist here that does some type of "digital Art", already is going down that road, where in some cases, better art is being created, because of the control and also the huge inventory of "tools" to create it.

Visit some design studios or Ad Agencies and the "art" being created, commercial art, but art, is all done on the computer, because it's better(faster,cheaper,controllable). I know somebody here will say, "oh I or my husband or my cousin or my friend, still draws his stuff", and that's fine, but industry wide, it's not being created that way and that's the way the art will evolve.

There might always be painters, using paint, just like there are craftsmen, building stuff, using original tools from the 16th,17th century, creating beautiful furniture, but that's a small percentage of craftsmen overall, who build furniture, more hobby like. And in years to come, maybe many years, painters will be in that same category, artists creating beautiful work, using tools from a forgotten period, because they still love the "experience" of their art! That will always be there, but we've entered a new "cosmic shift" and the vast majority of people, now and in the future, will not go back to the "messy,expensive,takes too much time" way of creating art.

You can agree or not, won't stop the natural progression of this shift,

Rich

Posted by: Rich Franco on 01/03/2013 - 7:17 PM
Maria,

"I think my statement that painting, as we know, may be a lost art in 100 years or so, was overlooked or even discounted. Much like using a typewriter or setting type, before that painting may someday be lost."
…….."Of course, there will be painters, acyually using some type of paint in my future, but they will be considered "old fashioned" and kooks! "


"RJ,

For now, it may be, but in the future, maybe not! In 100 years from now, will people even paint? Why? People can now "digitally paint", can you imagine in 100 years what will be available?

We may be looking at another example of technology, replacing a time old practice and moving on to a new and "cleaner", maybe painting today, is what the "typesetter machines,typewriters" of the past are now?

The capture of an image, by a digital device, may be around a lot longer than painting will be in the future! "


Maybe you have evolved?

By the way Rich, non sequitur to our spirited discussion, check this place out when you get a chance..join if you like.

http://www.viewbug.com/fame

Unless you actually build something out of matter, stone, wood, paint, metal, actual dark room printing with you own hands that is not binary code you will never have a one of a kind original... The quest of the genuine artist is deeply wrapped around a search for origin and the authentic... That will never change

Yes, they can "digitally paint" and many times do so myself. Creating an image, on a Blank "canvas" from scratch, using the brushes in Photoshop CS6, and many others Ive bought.,

BUT, it is not the same, not even close, and seldom do I ever put such a piece on our wall, though we do sell them in FAA, and have sold a number ranging from Cards @ $10 to a 48x48
We like the money it helps pay for fuel as we travel in the RV, but money is just money, and the self satisfaction from the hands on work in Painting is a totally different feeling.

Many Painters, really get into it, each day when painting, I have different colors on all fingers to clean off, from using them to "blend" areas where I intend to have it smooth, free from brush marks, etc.... You mention typewriters, there are still people repairing and selling them, and many authors of books using them. We still have an electric typewriter, and still use it to write a letter to my children and still write at times by hand... ... "They say, getting a letter, is much more enjoyable than an email, which is deleted after reading. We keep your letters and treasure them." Handwritten Letters are not antiques, many still send them. There are still MILLIONS who do not own a computer and never will... They will never create a painting with Digital. Id say the majority of Painters, do not have a computer or use them to create images.... There are thousands of NEW paintings every year sold in Galleries...

RJ

"There will always be painters and photographers, but in the future, painters may not use paint!"

That's what cave man who couldn't paint told the first cave painters! lol


"And if that's the case, will they be called painters!"

Yes...because the term has already been used by those who don't use actual "paint".

Yes Philip just because it was painted doesn't make it more original in the literal sense and books , movies and such don't fit into the same model is true.. I was referring to intrinsic values..

The Artist Formally Known as RJ

yes and the biggest medium he needs to transcend is the ego...

Ansel Adams, whose seminars Ive attended many times in Yosemite, said:
"Photographers are, in a sense, composers and the negatives are their scores. ... In the electronic age, I am sure scanning techniques will be developed to achieve prints of extraordinary subtlety from the original negative scores. If I could return in twenty years or so I would hope to see astounding interpretations of my most expressive images. It it true no one could print my negatives as I did, but they might well get more out of them by electronic means. Image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression." Ansel Adams.

The difference is similar to the difference in creating a photo from a digital. And creating a Silver Image in the darkroom. The self satisfaction that I get from doing that, is MUCH greater than when I print an image on a printer. The quality is not the same either, even many amateurs can tell the differences from a Silver Print and a digitized image.

Thus one of the most important photographers in my life, is stating what I feel, that No Machine, will ever produce an image which interprets my feelings which go into my paintings.

Though at times my feelings can be communicated with Photography, There is NOTHING like a painting to truly put them into context... Sooo, Ive created many Paintings, using my photography as the sketches for the ideas and feelings put into the painting.....

Click on this link to see it full size, to get the some impact of this painting... The only way to get the full impact, would be to see the Original... Though it might have been done digitally, just not the same feelings we have when creating. Only another Painter would truly understand that, like only a combat veteran understands what they experienced... http://fineartamerica.com/featured/korean-war-veterans-memorial-kia-nadine-and-bob-johnston.html

I can see you are very attached to it indeed....

I'm just teasing you Philip, I get what you're saying...
The Artist Formally Known as RJ

the ego is "I" ....also the part that separates you from the rest of the world... it is not merely the mediator between the conscious and unconscious, more often it acts in conflict and subservience to the super ego and id....

That is what Im also saying Philip that the tools are secondary, "No Machine will ever produce an image which interprets my feelings which go into my paintings" He did not produce paintings, but photographs...

Mark Perry asked the proverbial of why paint at all?

I guess it's because of the dangers presented by a grossly overrated "honey bo boo" cosmic shift, as Supino so eloquently puts it....

Very discouraging discussion. ... to think that computers and technology will completely take over art...For me, I am glad that they weren't around during the time of Renoir, Michelangelo ...what hate to think what we would have missed out on.

2013 A Space Odytee.....

(Hal)...would you like another masterpiece? or should I just sit here and ignore you.....while holding my synthetic breath.....

I think this discussion may make artists get out their paints and brushes........:)

Judy, et al,

I never said this: "to think that computers and technology will completely take over art", only that with the advances in technology, in our lifetime, there will be less people using paint to paint! There will always be artists, just the tools will change.

Here's what I think: We are in a period of another transition, due to technology, that will affect and change mankind forever. (Tony,pretty broad statement huh?) The effects, which we are experiencing now and have been for 10-20 years, are just the beginning, but will continue beyond our lifetimes. The "personal computer", the "cellular phone" and other devices, when being invented, were considered, unique and fun devices, but something that would never take off, by their inventors. Well, even further back, with the invention of the transistor/integrated circuit, they were important inventions, but no one could predict how they would change the world, not the inventors and not the world. But we know now, how these devices did literally change our lives. Almost everything we use today, has a "chip" in it,really a computer and when these things were invented, that thought would have been ludicrous!

So here's my example of an analogy of where we are today and where something like this, something “cosmic” occurred, the invention of the Gutenberg Press around 1440.

As you all know, books were hand printed/copied and took years to be made and were so expensive, only the Church and Royalty could possess them. After the invention of this press, which allowed moveable type to be used and used over and over again, books became available to more people.

From Wiki:

1.A single Renaissance printing press could produce 3,600 pages per workday,[4] compared to forty by typographic hand-printing and a few by hand-copying.[5]

2.By 1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million volumes.[7] In the 16th century, with presses spreading further afield, their output rose tenfold to an estimated 150 to 200 million copies.[7]

3.In Renaissance Europe, the arrival of mechanical movable type printing introduced the era of mass communication which permanently altered the structure of society.

And finally,

4.In 1620, the English philosopher Francis Bacon wrote of printing as one of the three things that "changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world".[9]


My thesis is then this: We are now here, 50-60 years into the same world changing dynamic, whether we want to acknowledge this “passage” or not.

And a final related example: Monks, hand copying books/manuscripts, while probably the most beautiful example of a “book” ever, slowly disapeared. It may have taken 100 years or 150, but at some point, both the ability/craft/art and the willingness to support this endeavor financially, stopped.

When I suggested, that in 100 years, there may not be “painters” using paint, I was making a very broad statement, which Tony helped point out! But nevertherless, I believe that statement will be true, based on the above example and others.

Just like there were monks in monasteries, for years, still hand copying art and manuscripts, maybe for hundreds of years after the “press” , there will be painters, using paint to create their art. But like the gifted monks, they and their skills will slowly disappear.

Photography and other “arts” will also slowly disappear and become “archaic”, still practiced by some, but less each decade.

So there you go! I hope this has helped to explain my statements above and look forward to your thoughtful responses, as always!

Maybe I should start a new thread for this?

Rich

I don't think you should start a new thread since the evolution of this thread will be lost. I salute you nonetheless for your brevity and in jumping into this fray to begin with. Only the very brave dare suggest inequity of medium on this site. So Kudos to you Rich for hanging in there.

In the future world, you are suggesting that the "artist" will become obsolete no matter what medium they choose. History is pointing out, that over time, everyone will be their own artist.

"There is always a heavy demand for fresh mediocrity. In every generation the least cultivated taste has the largest appetite." Paul Gauguin

Rich, I was just thinking how it would have been if technology and computers ruled in the day of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh...Imagine what would have been lost if they were painting via computer and a mouse instead of with paint...Imagine how much of their time would have been spent Twittering, blogging, and all of the other social network distractions artists are faced with today...the masters really perfected their art. Something can be said about too many technological distractions. A lot can be said about primitive instincts!

Mark, that is so true and timely and like painting timeless

Tony,

I agree with 50% of this statement! "In the future world, you are suggesting that the "artist" will become obsolete no matter what medium they choose. History is pointing out, that over time, everyone will be their own artist."

I disagree about obsolescence of all artists, just the tools used due to that "obsolescence".

Wiki:"Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order."

And I agree 100% with your last statement. Not of the quality produced, but by the ability to produce ART! See Gauguin.

Mark, PG explains the "Honey BooBoo" phenomena" and other assorted "Jack Ass" type productions, that seem to be the rage!

Judy, We may have in our presence, somewhere, someone producing art, that right now may not be recognized as ART, but will over time. Just as many of the "masters" in their time produced images that today are "priceless" but they died paupers. Someone, somewhere is using a computer and producing something that will become priceless!

RJ, see "Mark"!

Rich

@Rich 'Judy, We may have in our presence, somewhere, someone producing art, that right now may not be recognized as ART, but will over time. Just as many of the "masters" in their time produced images that today are "priceless" but they died paupers. Someone, somewhere is using a computer and producing something that will become priceless!'

Hope this is me..haha...

Anyway i was thinking about what mark( Gaugin) said about the least cultivated having the largest appetite.....the largest appetite I think in the sense that they may be driven by fear as in the illiterate peasants of, say the renaissance era, when while the aristocracy were reading and having books hand made, the paupers were going in droves daily to the church to gaze, hopeful at the glass stained windows, which told stories of what they would be rewarded with (heaven) if they were obedient and worked hard, or what would befall them if they didn't (Hell). The artistry, even though there was a large element of control by the church et al, without words delivered them a voice, which also kept them focused and alive, filled them with hope, even though it was in some ways a false hope, taking into account the politics of the day and what your faith is. I like the idea of the least cultivated having that immense sense of natural being, an essence and strength, part fear, that drove them to continue, maybe they were the real artists of the day, living a great part of their existence through the beautiful images of stained glass, and murals, also carved figures displayed around the walls of the churches and cathedrals....fascinating! So, I think what I am trying to say is, the artist will live on, especially the passionate one, but I feel technology will surpass the tube of paint, hope I'm wrong, and that is what makes me, want to get my paints out now....and has strengthened since this discussion began a few days ago!

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and in the art world there are PLENTY. Photographs that look like paintings, paintings that look like photographs, as long as you enjoy making what you call art, who cares? There's always going to be lovers and haters. People that "get" what you make and people that don't, c'est la vie...

Maria wrote, "driven by fear as in the illiterate peasants"

This may be out of context to what you were saying but it is enormously profound as to what is happening in this and many other very popular threads like this one. The majority of personalities in the world fall into what I refer to as fear based head types.. The head is concerned with the future, it's all the " what if's" that run through our heads. Most people operate primarily from that perspective. Not usually the most original types because they tend to need tried and true formulas .. They are most in search of a father figure that they never really feel they can please no matter how they try. They are also very easily lead because of this and as a result brake the world down into absolutes" You're either with me or against me" . Like soldiers in war they feel they need to know what everyones rank is, often looking to provoke it out of you. It bugs the hell out of them that there are "Elitists" and in the art world the painter represents the most elite of all and that really pisses them off... they wish that with their sheer numbers they could make them go away and leave the world to the regular guy...
I personally don't believe the painter to have the corner on the market of "artist" I'm just trying to illustrate the point, I do however think that painting is the standard ...

Don't hold back RJ, tell us what you really think.

RJ

"Mediocrity would always win by force of numbers, but it would win only more mediocrity. " Ellen Glasgow

RJ,

So, like, did that diatribe above, like, have some focus, like to somebody here?

And further more, how the hell do you teach a pheasant to read? I mean aren't they all illiterate?

Rich

A card carrying non-elitist!

This probably isn't the place for such a complex discussion, sorry I do go off the track...yet it's all related. It is difficult to cut of the relativity at any point...obvously because it is all relative. I think RJ's point is relative to everyone. If we discusss the future and the technology, then Rich, like you have, you have to compare it with the past and how events, attitudes have evolved.
I don't think, though could be wrong, that RJ was on the attack, with his comments. Seemed to me he was intelligently investigating ideas, I will have to go back and re read.
Maybe pheasants will be able to read in the future....with technology the way its going...maybe even paint :))
BTW the peasants were only illiterate because they were purposely prevented from becoming literate...too much written knowledge would have been dangerous....

ok, just re read, and as I said earlier...these are complex ideas. I don't fit neatly into of either of the personality types. But i could see parts of both in me, but they didn't make up the whole of me. Nevertheless I found it interesting....I think its a good topic to discuss....the power of fear, and what it prevents us from doing, or makes us do. We could come up with some good answers to why a lot of things fail in the present, or that could be improved. But, maybe we are only here to learn, not to find answers!!??? Sorry, going off track again, no wonder I never get replies, well, very often.
But to give RJ his due he did end with,

'personally don't believe the painter to have the corner on the market of "artist" I'm just trying to illustrate the point, I do however think that painting is the standard ..

Would the peasants have been summoned by the church bell ( which has been done away with, apparantly in my neighbourhood long time ago due to men working nights being woken by the church bell!) and attended it so eagerly to be given a lesson by the priest about the stories in the beautiful windows, if they had to crowd around a laptop!! there's a question for you!! :)
What power the WORK of art has, outside of computer screen! but no doubt that will be taken into account in the future and adaptations will be made. But, that doesn't mean they will be successful!

Maria,

The "churches" of today are already sending the "Word" via email and twitter!

And it will be successful, as had books and now E-books are beginning to dominate the industry!

I'm not trying to endorse technology, per se, but the fact that it drives our lives and the people around us. "Texting" wasn't even a word 10 years ago!

Rich

Yes, Rich, I was reading a few weeks ago that the pope was deciding on whether to go on twitter, now he is on twitter, maybe i should go on and ask him the art v photography question. You would think he would listen to the peasants...equally :)
I know that you are not trying to endorse technology, you've got a bit more depth and experience than to commit to that methinks.:))
Interesting reading http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-benedict-xvi-gods-representative-on-twitter-sends-first-message-8411213.html

Maria,

M'Lady, I wasn't suggesting an "art v photography" debate, only the acceptance that technology now, as back in the days of DaVinci, plays a role in art and we have to, as artists know that this change is coming, if not already here and decide, for ourselves, as artists, which tools to embrace and which to discard and which tools help us accomplish the art we see and need to create with these tools!

"Elitist" artist, looking down from their towers, sometimes fail to see anything that is below them. They will all stay in their towers, until the towers, from lack of care, come down. The higher the artist's tower. of course, the more difficult the view of the real world.

Rich

feet firmly planted on the ground!

When i wrote art v photography, i was going to correct it :) but was too laazy. Of course the content on twitter, if I ever manage to get through to the pope...as he has millions of tweeters..will be properly communicated. :)

I think towers can work for you, you sometimes have to be obsessive and lock yourself away to create, but yes, you have to long hair like Rapunzel too, and escape the tower.....I like mixing with the peasants, actually I have no choice, well I do, but maybe that's why I'm interested in the fear theories, Sir!. of course, you're right...but not just the artist's tower....anyone's tower. even the peasant can have a tower. Don't you think?
.

Rich,
Greg Ahrens has a photo on activity stream which i mistook for a painting! Maybe you should ask him a few questions about it.:) It is the one with the glass bottle of sunflowers on the chair.

Well put R.J.

To paraphrase a well known saying "Some are born elite, some strive to be elite and some have elitism thrust upon them". I suppose I'll just have to grin and bear it------------while I still can.

I'm not a painter but when I say a painting looks like a photo it is meant as a compliment because it looks so real. Now if someone painted something surreal or cartoonie and the object obviously wasn't intended for realism and I said it looked like a photo, then I could see the painter take offense.

Rich, I understand where you are coming from. I have my photos displayed at a local gallery. This peacock, I have heard many people say it looks like a painting, when clearly its a photograph. A lady bought the peacock because she liked it and its looks like a painting. I took it as a compliment. :)

How should I feel if I make a photograph and someone says: "Wow, I thought you painted that on your computer!"

Crystal,

The highest form of a compliment, is a purchase! I wish I had more of those!

Tony,

Is this a trick question? I guess you should feel good, the implication to me, is the viewer knows of your skills and appreciates your talent and doesn't care how the ART was created and as you or I shouldn't.

There is some beautiful art work here, created on computers and we shouldn't be concerned how or where the art was created, only enjoy the art. Don't you agree?

Rich

Not a trick question.

But I wonder, since you claim …………"the viewer knows of your skills and appreciates your talent and doesn't care how the ART was created and as you or I shouldn't". Is that really true?

People don't care how an image came to be?

The process is subject to the result?

The end then, justifies the means?

Not trick or rhetorical questions by the way.

"we shouldn't be concerned how or where the art was created". You know Rich, That is probably true in the poster business or POD business. Most of the decorative arts as well. It has everything to do with the Fine Arts however. How you made it, is a very important and big deal. POD people have little concern for material or even a direct knowledge of what the materials really are that are used in production. For instance, Permanence of pigment. Pigment or dye. Who made the paper, etc.

Yes, to some art buyers, the process is indeed important and an added value to the artwork. But I would think percentage wise, small, relative to the "ART" in the artwork. Would someone not by a painting, because the type of oils or acrylics used, wasn't up to the buyers standard? I doubt there are buyers out there in numbers that feel that way. If the painting took 4 hours or if it took 4 weeks, should that effect the final choice? Probably not and the question may not even be asked, unless offered by the painter.

To me, it's like asking Hemingway, what brand typewriter he used, was it important, maybe to him, not to the world,

Rich

I grew up in the wrong Era.

You are correct Rich, as time goes on the process (If it ever was) is not important to the "Buyer". And, as time goes on, it seems to be lees important to the artist.

Not so Rich. There is a very large and educated group of collectors who don't buy stuff that may fall apart in a year or two. Go to any decent gallery and ask. Don't take my word for it. But then, I don't sell stuff for 29.95 either.

In my opinion this thread is crying out for a non-sequitur.

And since Mr. Jeffries wrote these words this morning, "Grin and bear it"

I'm taking that opportunity to publish this:

Tony,

AH! Reverse Psychology!!! Very Good! You agree with me and then I have to take your old stance, in order to continue this debate and then,wham! You wipe the floor with my arguments!!! Very interesting.....

Mark, at that level, yes I agree with you, but I'm really talking about the "masses", not educated buyers/collectors/investors,

Roger, hate to see these guys in warm weather, look like a bunch of tripods, if you get my drift.....

Rich

True Rich........... However, no point in excluding yourself from a very good and very large market.

In order to command the prices I get I must use at the very least high quality linen. I do work on cotton but the gallery doesn't like it.

Robert,

At your level of art produced, it would only make sense to use the finest materials. I'm not suggesting that you go to Wal-Mart and buy art supplies!!! LOL. As artists, we all should strive to use the best materials available to us, at the prices we can afford, and comparable to the quality of art we produce,

Rich

Robert,

At your level of art produced, it would only make sense to use the finest materials. I'm not suggesting that you go to Wal-Mart and buy art supplies!!! LOL. As artists, we all should strive to use the best materials available to us, at the prices we can afford, and comparable to the quality of art we produce,

Rich

Robert,

At your level of art produced, it would only make sense to use the finest materials. I'm not suggesting that you go to Wal-Mart and buy art supplies!!! LOL. As artists, we all should strive to use the best materials available to us, at the prices we can afford, and comparable to the quality of art we produce,

Rich

"There is joy in feeling the bristles of a quality brush, seeing the richness and lush color of truly good pigment flowing onto the paper or canvas. The cheap stuff just makes for harder work and lesser results." Gene Black

To spend sweat and tears...and in the case of one when the easel broke, blood...and not use good quality paints and brushes is just impossible to fathom. You have to care a much about what you paint with as how you paint it.

Same as a cameraman and his/her camera

Imo

Most of the time I am what I think would be regarded as a 'realistic painter'. But if someone told me one of my paintings looked like a photograph, I would cringe. I could not spend hours creating something that looked just 'like a photograph'.

I think there are 2 issues here. Mainly in the perceptions of the person making the comment. Firstly, many people think that because a painting shows a fair amount of detail, it is 'like a photograph'. In that sense, they may be paying what they regard as the highest compliment. On the other hand, there are a heap of decisions a painter has to make, that a person taking photographs is much less troubled about - what to omit, whether to move items to improve composition and balance, what the tonal values and colors are to be etc etc. The photographer may choose his vantage point, his light intensity - and, yes if he is setting up and photographing a still life, his objects and their placement. But outside of Photoshop, his options are considerably less than the painter's. Many people don't know enough to look at a painting with this difference in mind. They have no idea what goes on behind the scenes of a painting.

Secondly, two of the most important powers the painter has are the powers of omission and distortion - often underrated by the viewing audience. What the painter does not paint can be as important to the overall effect of the work as what he does paint. Similarly, he can interpret shape and color to express his own unique style or viewpoint. The final effect may still be 'realistic', but it will certainly not be photographic.

I could go on about Photoshop for hours. Yes, I use it at times. But suffice to say that while some 'Photoshopped' photographs may look really like paintings, they still do not equate to the challenges of starting out with a blank substrate and physically creating every stroke from there.

I've followed your lead, Rich and lumped pen and ink, pencil, oils, acrylics, watercolors, etc. into painting. I hope I'm not offending anyone, and have to say I deeply admire many photographers' works. But are they 'like paintings' (even if they look like paintings)? To me - No!

Patricia

@RJ.........I know only too well the Gallery preference for linen.....but I find it very unintuitive, it's very unkind to the brushes, and.......if one gessos the life out of it's surface, what is the point? !!!

Patricia,

Thanks for joining in and good to hear your perspective on this rambling thread.

My only comment I might make, is in response to this:

"But suffice to say that while some 'Photoshopped' photographs may look really like paintings, they still do not equate to the challenges of starting out with a blank substrate and physically creating every stroke from there."

I feel that the "challenge" is there for the both of us, painter and photogrpaher, to create an image that pleases us and hopefully others. While I could look at a blank canvas, all day long and have no idea where to start, a painter may have the same challenge, when handed a camera and asked to create an image, maybe even the image I posted to start this thread. I know it wasn't your intention to discount the "work" required to create great photographic images and I accept your comment as it was intended, an explaination from one artist to another, on how the see the creation of ART.

I had to "find" this image above and then capture it, while you had the vision and had to "construct" it,

Rich

Photographers are bound by more rules I think than a painter. I painter sees something in their mind and creates it therefore it is only supposed to look how the painter wants it to look . Whereas a photographer can envision in his head what he/she wants it to look like but a photo still need to look like what is photographed. I don't know if that makes sense, I know what I am trying to say but I can't think of the best way to say it right now. Basically a painter can splash a whole can of paint on a piece of paper and call it art but taking a picture of a can of paint usually doesn't constitute art. Now a can of soup, well that's another story :)
I am a landscape photographer and I guess I use a lot of contrast and clarity in my pictures to give more punch to them, that and the slow water effects I guess do make some of them look kind of like a painting. I do get quite a bit of comments that say they look like a painting. I don't intentionally set out to make them look like a painting that just has kind of become my signature I guess. I don't mind if people say it looks like a painting because it does. Now it does kind of bother me if they say it looks fake. However if people like it the way it is and it leads to a sale, not yet by the way, then I guess they can say it looks like whatever they want.

I like dutch linen, makes good sails too...........

Just a funny aside note, RJ and I are on the road for a few days, and he doesn't have his usual big screen moniter, he is using my smart phone to reply and after watching him struggle with the tiny keypad, I showed him how to use the microphone. The first sentence became; "I must use at the least very high quality women"...

High quality women are a must, regardless of the medium.

Now, something we all can agree on!!!

Rich

floozies are a lot more fun......................

Thanks for replying to my ramblings, Rich. I think for all of us it's great to see how 'the other side' views the creative process. I'm new here and it's wonderful to find a discussion like this right off the bat!

Patricia

This is a photograpah of Greg Ahrens, when i first saw it i thought it might be an oil painting. I will ask Greg to comment on it.

Maria,

Great shot! Maybe the best on his site, with only 24 images, i want to see more!

Rich

Patricia,

This thread is mild, compared to a few others, as a matter of fact, I had a full head of hair, when I first joined a year ago.......

Rich

Rich I'm glad to hear you've been here a year and been through the gauntlet, I was feeling guilty for the delivery of one of my diatribes upon your thread.. RJ

RJ,

Contrary to my "youthful Avatar" I'm a pretty big boy now!!! Bring it on!!!

Rich

RJ, you're diatribes (had to look the definition up) are great, as, for me, they just open up the discussion. I'll bet Rich likes them too!!
Anyway, Greg has sent some text but i am just checking with him that I can post it here as I think it may ....open up the discussion again! :))
Rich, do you think his photo looks like a painting?

If someone told me that one of my paintings looked like a photograph I would have to ask them what sort of medications they were taking. If they weren't I would immediately refer them to the nearest camera shop so they could get repairs done.

I definitely do not do photorealism. ;)

I think photographers have a challenge to their skills at least as grey as that facing painters. A painter starts with a blank field and crest his vision on it. A photographer starts with what the world has provided and extracts his vision from it. Especially in the days before photoshop it must have been maddening to try to get the lighting, camera angle, depth of field, focus, and that all important subject to all come together properly on film. How many great shots went spoiled by an inconvenient object?

Better to hear, "Your painting looks like a photograph" or "Your photograph looks like a painting" than to hear, "Your painting and your photograph look like crap".

When it comes to painting and photography, I have put aside the idea that one versus the other. There is NO "versus". It is what it is to the senses, and however you produce it is your secret.

FYI

RE: CRAP ART

There are currently 70 images here on FAA under the title of Crap Art

Some pertain to the dice game, a number are duplicates, a few misspellings, and some others are questionable.

But there is fair amount where the artist is proud enough in their work, to freely call them, "CRAP"

There doesn't seem to be much on this site that isn't crap Roger.

Mark,

Go to your room, no TV!!!

Rich

I'm a painter and a photographer. I've had people think a photograph I took looks like a painting and visa versa. Although, I don't think my paintings look like photographs.

The best compliment I ever got was when someone said that I paint like the 'masters'. They could have been giving me a load of bull, but I took it anyway and allowed it to make my day. Come to think of it, I've never had a negative comment about my paintings, but I have had constructive criticism.

This painting has been thought to be a photograph. Although it is one of the closest to a photo I have; to me, it looks like a painting:



...and one of the photos that someone thought was a painting:



I have no problem with people thinking that.

Jani,

Very nice! Love both and an interesting model!

Rich

Hey Maria,
I appreciate the interest in the sunflowers image.
I think when I shot the image I was probably thinking more in terms of b+w, so I don't think I was thinking 'this looks like a painting'. That said, I do think a lot of still life photography has the ability to resemble a painting just by the nature of the subject matter. I think a lot of times what makes a photo look more like a photo in ones mind is the saturation of color or even over saturation. By eleminating some of that saturation it can give a photo a more realistic or natural look.
I certainly take it as a compliment. That may come from the fact that I have a photojournalism background and see photography more as documentation, which is not to say I don't view it as an art form, especially film photography. The digital revolution has made anyone with a camera or even an Iphone a photographer and in my opinion cheapened the medium.
Thanks for including me in your discussion!
greg

Great examples jan, my question, was there an intention beforehand to have them appear like the other medium?

Here's another image of mine that I get quite a few remarks about and is usually taken for a painting, and again, I consider that a compliment, which is what started this whole "treatise"!



And no, this has never sold either,

Rich

beautiful though...my first reaction to this was visualising long continuous brush strokes, very soothing, but definitely more akin to a painting :) than photography. But, remember, I know little of photography, you are the skilled photographer!

Thank you, Rich.

Good question, Maria. The painting was intended to be a realism exercise, but holding back just enough from realism to still appear like a painting at first glance. I could have taken it further; but, at the time, I was also trying to enjoy Christmas with my family. :-)

The photograph was not intended to look like a painting. I simply just loved what I saw and photographed it. I was mesmerized by the colors and clarity of the water. Just before this shot it was a perfect reflection; then, a duck broke the reflection and it waved ever so gently from the passing duck. While I was waiting for the duck to pass from view, I just watched through my camera. The movement was beautiful and I wished I was capturing it on video. Quiet and beautiful.

Rich, I love soft focus or blurry photos like that. Forgive me. I don't know the proper terminology.

Your one above, in the original post, would have been a fascinating piece to view at such a large size.

Rich.......... Doesn't look anything like a painting. Looks like a long exposure photo.

jan, I love your description of viewing the boat scene, and the interruption of the duck, which added to the whole experience, as when you were describing it, I couldn't help but think that art was happening. :)

mark...maybe from a prof photographers perspective...but not from mine...:)

Jani,

You got it pretty much right, soft focus or in this case(Mark!) a long exposure, which let the water in the stream "flow" in front of the lens, creating "movement" which is sometimes hard to do in photography,

Rich

Rich,
while still contemplating my other challenge, I am also going to think about taking a photo which could appear to look like a painting.

Maria, every time I go out photographing, I do think about what I would want it to look like if I painted it. I guess that's the benefit of being a painter. That and taking the time to edit what I see helps me with composition. So art is happening when I take photos. There is a story to every one of them even the unsuccessful ones. There's a story to all my pieces. Paintings and photos. Probably a story to every piece of art out there.

I guess it's the job and challenge of the artist to tell the story that they want the viewer to see. Of course, the viewer may see something completely different and that is okay too as long as there is a connection to the art. Love it. Hate it. I don't care. Just have some kind of connection with it that makes you pause for a minute or two and take it in. I think the only kind of reaction that I can't stomach is the walk-past-and-look-at-the-one-next-to-mine reaction, "Now this one I like". Humph. Forever a conundrum to find a niche that I like to do that the audience wants to see.

Anyway...do go and do that, Maria. It seems that my abstract photography gets seen as paintings at first. At least that is what people tell me. I have gone out and taken photos with the thought in mind to find a painting in a photograph. It takes me about 15 minutes to a half hour to get into the groove of that mind set. Walking around and looking through the eye of my camera because that automatically edits peripheral vision.

Here is a good example of a that kind of find. To me, it looks like geese flying into a marshy pond. There is even a faux reflection in the faux pond:



This is actually a rust stain on the side of a boat and was not altered in any way. The rust stain was along the full length of the boat and it was clear that it took a great deal of time for the rusty patina to get to this level. I moved inch by inch, all the while with my eye looking through the camera, until I saw this. The boat rocked gently with the waves of the tide coming into the marina and made eerie creaking sounds. At one point, I even paused for a moment to listen to the rhythm of the creaking. I was lying on the dock on my belly at points and was truly lost in the moment of capturing art. So lost in it that I forget time (the closest I'll ever get to being a kid again). I love that part of photography and only go out photographing when I have nothing else pending for my time.

Thanks jani, that was lovely to read. With the camera I spend so much time trying to get the light and sharpness right that i don't think about it being a painting, I do however get lost in the moment, and forget that anything else is happening. I find painting easier, I feel that I have more control...not all control..just more control..but that is what I like about photography too...that you never know what you're gonna end up with.:))

Jani,

Maybe you should reconsider: "So lost in it that I forget time (the closest I'll ever get to being a kid again). I love that part of photography and only go out photographing when I have nothing else pending for my time." Maybe you should MAKE time for photography, if it makes you feel this good! Think about it.

Maria, Don't worry so much about the "mechanics" of the camera for now, just let your Artist's Eye, be your camera and find, even one image that you love and then after it's composed in the viewfinder, make your camera adjustments,(assuming that you are using your tripod!) If you're so concerned about the settings and such, you won't be able to "see" and that's the whole idea,isn't it?

Rich

Mark, try searching Sh** You'll get 4 pages.

Imagine if there was third part tagging. I wonder what keywords would pop up?

On the original subject, unless I were trying to copy some painter from the Photorealist movement, I would not consider it a compliment to have my painting compared to a photo. I would also think the commenter was some sort of idiot.

Cheers

Thanks Rich, i do enjoy the camera, but yes I do get tied up in knots over the mechanics, so much to remember before i click....but i am beginning to remember where to go, to change settings now with some things, so it will get easier, but i am going to focus on getting what i want through the viewfinder instead of settling for what I am getting at the moment..:))

Rich here is another one of yours that looks very painterly (and I like very much)


It seems you have a very good eye for capturing images that look like paintings - and maybe you enhance them somewhat?

The fun for me is in post processing, working on my photos to achieve something more than the camera caught. Sometimes my processing is very subtle and sometimes way over the top,

So far, the only 'real' sale on FAA (that is to say a framed picture rather than 'just' a card or just something of my own that i bought for myself) is a scenic photograph, hardly retouched at all ... I say 'hardly' because i am pretty much incapable of posting a raw photo.

Ginny,
Love howyou play with light, colour and composition, as in Tree on a Hill. Still Life with Fruit, Pink, to name a few. Can't quite put my finger on it but there's a feeling of sensitivity and candidness about them. Thanks for sharing.

Rich, maybe you are really a painter at heart,,:)

Thanks, Roger, for enlightening me to the fact that CRAP art is a legitimate enterprise here at FAA. (^_^)

Agreed, Rich. At least I should plan to have more photographing days. Hard to do all the time. Especially lately. I've been trying to get some paintings ready for a gallery. I must remember to keep my camera in my car. It would make it easier to enjoy spontaneous photography moments. After the gallery order is filled, I will most definitely plan to go play with my camera.

Maria,
Don't try and think of ALL the ways you can adjust your camera, just set it on one and shoot away!

Ginny, I had almost forgetten about this image, really just a snapshot! My friend has a "cabin" that can only be reached by crossing this stream. We were on the "otherside" and to get back to town, had to cross the stream. It had rained overnight in the mountains and the next day, the day we were supposed to leave, the creek was high. While they were looking at the levels, I had my camera out and got this image! Thanks for posting this!!!

Maria, I think most photographers are painter at heart and that's what allow them to capture images that would make great paintings!

Jani, I think you need to promise me that you will "schedule" more photo time!

Rich

True Dat



No great image was ever produced that the photographer did not have the eye of a painter.

well I hope if anyone get's my eye it will be the left one cause my right one isn't worth a damn..

Me too Robert. Are we twins separated from birth?

RE: The Eye of a Painter

Not Only Do I Agree,....I wrote this 8;14 PM entry last night:

" Here's a wonderful example of a "Painter's Mind's Eye" creating a marvelous photograph.... Instead of the stroke of the brush, there's the snap of the shutter button, to bring the inner vision into reality."

This was in reference to this photograph:



When wishing Jackie a Happy Birthday.

And I have one bad eye also ,Amigos.....My left (a stroke)

I've wanted to add something to this thread that had to do with the Rich's questions and it came to me. I've never been told my paintings look like a photo but I did have a very interesting critique one time from a painter I respect very much. He told me he had read an article about Rembrandt and Vermeer and in the article the writer stated that when you look at a Vermeer although a master of light they were always the same and when you look at a Rembrandt they always looked different. He said my work was like that, he called it a sucker punch, you'd think you were looking at a simple tree then WAM! it would hit you, it was a specific tree and not so benign. He said that the change was what made great painting. It is said that Vermeer used the first camera lens. It was a light box with a lens that when you looked through it you would see the image reflected on mirrors through the lens. I wonder, did the lens kill the life?

Great example roger! And yes,Robert, Rembrandt never just painted a tree. i will have to have another look at your work!

Rich,
took some photos from my area today to begin challenge 2. While I was clicking away, I became aware of one view through the viewer...that in a second...between waiting for the breeze to stop so that i could get a sharper image... and. ...just as I began to press the button, I saw what looked like a painting!!!! Will send soon.

RJ,

Have you seen the "Girl with the Pearl Earring"? I think there was a shot of the "camera obcura" in that great movie!

"The 17th century Dutch Masters, such as Johannes Vermeer, were known for their magnificent attention to detail. It has been widely speculated that they made use of such a camera, but the extent of their use by artists at this period remains a matter of considerable controversy, recently revived by the Hockney–Falco thesis." Wiki

Maria, looking forward to your "results"!

Rich

Yes Rich I saw it last month but I also learned of it long ago. I remember another painter once telling me a a way to see the sky better was to look at it in a mirror and it brakes down the information so it makes sense easier. I always noticed that when looking at the reflection of the sky on still water it had the same effect.

True enough Robert. With the mirror and the reflection in a pond the light you see is polarized. and simpler.............

I promise, Rich! :-)

...And that movie, Girl With A Pearl Earing, is awesome! The lighting is superb. I loved everything about it. Movies like that are very inspiring to me. Speaking of, I've heard that Les Miserabe is a movie for artists. Gotta go see that one.

Hiding the most important thing.....that is the thing!!!:) I look fwd to watching this movie..thanks for sharing.