What is personal use photography? What is Fine art Photography? Save Like this: Like Loading Loading Comments Email Required Name Required Website. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
It works as the connector. The artist as the photographer. Visual art has played its part in the development of photography, and that will be seen at the exhibition. Moreover, she notes that the main emphasis is on the photos, which have served as preparation for painting rather than being real artistic photography.
These hybrids, however, display a great insight into the creative searches of the artists. Hence, the exhibition covers many fields which demonstrate beauty and fantasy, reflection of the past, mosaics and photo collages and many more. The exhibition also showcases postcards, glass plates and even invites one to participate in a photo shoot at the photo salon created at the hall.
People depend on reality. Arguably the fight to understand which one — photography or painting — gives us a more authentic view on reality is almost unnecessary, as they both differ only in technique. On one hand, photography does represent reality and cannot exist without it.
On the other hand, it can distort and misrepresent reality with different degrees of subtlety. This is the reason surrealists embraced photography so eagerly. Using both purely technical means like double exposures, montage, forced perspective, cross-processing, solarization, etc.
No wonder that fashion and advertising professionals adopted surreal photography so quickly and effectively. One of the notable differences between painting and photography is the fact that photographic technique is transparent.
What it means is that by virtue of being rather complex and difficult to master, technical skills of a painter are considered an indispensable part of his artistic talent.
Photography is not like that at all. Current advancements in photographic technology made it possible for anyone to take a technically sound photo and even accidentally create a masterpiece. Therefore, when a photo is technically perfectly executed, it is perceived as something not worth talking about, and only when something is wrong, the viewer will note a problem with focusing or exposure.
It is true that in life we do see objects in colour. And a painting reproduces these objects by means of colours. But these are different from nature, not identical with her. Painting cannot transpose real colours, it can only copy -more or less approximately — a tint we see in nature.
And the problem is not how talented a painter is, but is basic to the very nature of his or her work. The colour media with which a painter works oil, watercolour, size have a different effect on our eyes than the rays of light which give diverse colours to objects. She cannot give a picture those colours — either in quality or in quantity — which objects possess in reality.
Photography does not yet reproduce exact colouring, but at least it does not falsify an object by giving it the wrong colours. And this is an advantage not to be underestimated. The most sensitive and progressive painters have long since grasped that precision of colour reproduction is not at all easy and that the principles of painterly colouring are not identical with those of reality. What do we care for how an object looks? Let observers and photographers deal with that, we — the painters — make pictures in which nature is not the subject but merely an initial impetus for ideas.
The painter not only has the right to change reality, it is virtually his duty to do so; otherwise he is not a painter but a bad copyist — a photographer. Life cannot be represented in a painting, it would be senseless to imitate it; that means it must be recreated on canvas in a separate, painterly way.
This is the idea behind the theories and schools of painting which have emerged since the middle of the 19th century under the names of Impressionism, Cubism, Suprematism and many others. They had separate tasks which could not be compared. Each fulfills its own task.
The photographer captures life and the painter makes pictures. A photograph transmits no colours at all; a painting gives a consciously different, non-real colour to an object. The situation seems clear. But here, in Soviet Russia, an interesting artistic phenomenon can be observed, namely the attempt by the painters to regain lost positions and to strive for the reproduction of reality in line with photography.
The social roots of this phenomenon are quite obvious: Firstly an immense need for a visual record of the new life.
0コメント