45: Re: Why compete with a photo?

Art Teaching videos
1st video workshop $160.00	2nd video workshop $ 120.00	3d video workshop $110.00

Re: Why compete with a photo?

In Reply to: Re: Why compete with a photo? posted by Amadore on 04/28/00 at 2:05 AM:

: CobaltBlue. Painting is an art of communication, it is a visual art that mediates something to the viewer through the eyes of the artist. The language is reality, because everyone knows it. You missed the point, if you think that "realistic painting" is only about showing reality. Photographs are a rational tool, without emotion, and to be honest, I trust more a painting than a photo. On another note, it may be a termed close-minded to not consider abstract painting as ART, but it is the case with me, namely because it destroys communication, and leaves the painter with nothing more than superficial physical movements of the hand, with no intellectual or emotional consideration. It kills language. If I were to write a poem like this :
: asdt dfgdf gdfg rewrwe yu
: werwer werwe rewre wer
: werer werer3 2rrggg dfggg
: ssdfd sdfdfsf sdfdfs

: as opposed to this:
:
: "She walks in beauty, like the night
: Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
: And all that's best of dark and bright
: Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
: Thus mellow'd to that tender light
: Which heaven to gaudy day denies."

: I should rather be "close-minded" and true, than "Open-minded" and be it for the mere sake of not being it.
: Thank you.... E.A.

: P.S. No offense

:
: : What's left to express or to prove through ultra realistic painting?

Amadore, I agree that painting is an art of communication. So why repeat , by ultra realistic painting , what a photo can communicate? How can you avoid a redundant expression or feeling? I think the first impressionistic painters asked themselves these questions as they saw how the camera communicated visual images.

Photographs do communicate and they do invoke feelings and emotions. Why wouldn't they? They're an image, a language, just like a painting, that we view and receive information from. Why trust one "realistic " image over another ?

I'm not anti realistic or anti craftsmanship concerning painting. In fact most of my paintings are realistic and I greatly admire skill and proficiency. When I posted this question I was not trying to promote abstract art, I was only trying to question the significance of ultra realistic painting in my (and others) world.

But I also strongly feel there is a place and a need for the language of abstraction and uncertainty. The only thing that kills or destroys this language is when there's no one to listen for it, or perceive it in some way.

At this moment I'm questioning and I'm searching for the best way to skillfully express the degrees of feeling and desires which are produced in me from what I perceive and sense. And for me, at this time, it's not through ultra realistic painting.

Yours truly, Cobalt Blue