Re: Why compete with a photo?

In Reply to: Re: Why compete with a photo? posted by T.Newson on 05/10/00 at 4:11 PM:

: What you see in a photograph depends on the film, the lighting, the lens, the skill or luck of the photographer (in my case it's luck), and the processing. I want to photograph the sky at night here, but to get the subtlety of the colors I'll have to paint it. (Since I already admitted I need luck with photography, I guess this doesn't mean much...)Photos often flatten people's faces too.

Recently I have been very fascinated with the works of the Flemish painters of the 17th century, more specifically the Flemish flower painters. Its all extravagant, delicate, subtle, mysterious, eloquent, with passionate excess. I think if they had relied on photos to paint from they would have never achieved the same amazing degree of art that they did.

I'm not totally against using photos today. I think they're useful as a tool to render an ultra realistic painting when those circumstances arise. I have used photos. But I believe painting from a photograph , if not careful or if used continuously, will usurp the artists own feelings and desires causing a finished product that might be created with unquestioning detail but void of the artists own free expression of her/his individual feelings and desires.

Which leads me to this question I have been exploring. Does the degree of art in a painting rely on the skillful imitation of a photo or in the skillful expression of the artists' own feelings and desires?

 
A. A. Art. This Site designed and maintained by Alexei Antonov
Translation from Russian Copyright (c) 1999 Vladimir Pavlov.
Copyright (c) 1999 Alexei Antonov. All rights reserved.