 SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | I'd like your hear your thoughts Something I have thought about for a while. I think a piece of art is better if it is not perfect. I think when a piece is too perfect it looks sterile and not relaxed. Those imperfections are a part of what makes art unique. In other words when making art, I like to make it look like it just accidentally happened. When you look around, our faces are not perfect, flowers are not perfect, trees, nothing in our world is perfect. |
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | OOPS wrong forum, could the mods please move. Thanks! |
|
 Coma Thanks StevePremium
join:2001-12-30
NirvanaLand | said by SueS:OOPS wrong forum, could the mods please move. Thanks!
Too late . . .
--
January is National Oatmeal Month |
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | I posted in the DI Tech forum first. Mods moved it here for me. |
|
|
|
 jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:22
1 edit | reply to SueS
I don't think there is anything such as perfection. I try to make my images as if I just happened by them also...on ultimately, what my eye zeroed in on. Sometimes that means cropping a bit and sometimes the surroundings are just part of the whole, so I leave things pretty much as is. I also try to enjoy, all over again, what I have seen by my photography, just as I used to do with my painting. I don't try to make my art perfect. Only God can do that. 
--
JKK
Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!
»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay
|
|
Coma Thanks StevePremium
join:2001-12-30
NirvanaLand | reply to SueS
said by SueS:Something I have thought about for a while. I think a piece of art is better if it is not perfect. I think when a piece is too perfect it looks sterile and not relaxed. Those imperfections are a part of what makes art unique.
When I was learning printmaking 40+ years ago, those imperfections were what identified individual prints in an edition and were much sought after as each print was an original.
--
January is National Oatmeal Month |
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | This is a different kind of imperfection than I was thinking about. It is still the individualized character of the print that appeals.
I think it is interesting that we work hard for perfection yet for our work to stand out from the work of others it needs to have its own imperfections or character. |
|
 Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to SueS
said by SueS:Something I have thought about for a while. I think a piece of art is better if it is not perfect. I think when a piece is too perfect it looks sterile and not relaxed. Those imperfections are a part of what makes art unique. In other words when making art, I like to make it look like it just accidentally happened. When you look around, our faces are not perfect, flowers are not perfect, trees, nothing in our world is perfect.
Well having just sen a local example... don't really understand why a modern painter would pinstakingly do photo realistic painting??? WHY... just because you can... but someone is gonna pay you bucks for a painted photo?
Back in the Renaissance when there was no photography OK but now?
--
|
|
jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:22 | Yes. Many pay bucks for painted photography. I've seen some stunning work done that way. Also, it's just part of today's culture and an additional part of creativity in art/photography. Just a quick search and I come up with:
»www.google.com/search?q=painted+···7ADSA_en |
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | reply to Hayward
said by Hayward: Well having just sen a local example... don't really understand why a modern painter would pinstackingly do photo realistic painting??? WHY... just because to can... but someone is gonna pay you bucks for a painted photo? Back in the Renaissance when there was no photography OK but now? Not everyone can paint. I would take a good painting to hang on my wall over a photograph any day. |
|
Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | reply to jaykaykay
said by jaykaykay:Yes. Many pay bucks for painted photography. I've seen some stunning work done that way.
Actually what I was more referring to just ultra photo-realistic painting, not necessarily from or over a photo.
And a couple ones I am thinking of are of just mundain objcts like a Monopoly board.
--
|
|
Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | reply to SueS
said by SueS:Not everyone can paint. I would take a good painting to hang on my wall over a photograph any day.
Well that's just it, why speed hundreds or more dollars on what for all intents and purposes appears to BE a photograph???
I have a painting I very much like, that I am pretty sure was done from a photo. Fairly photo like but still clearly a painting that reflects the artists style an personality, in textures and shadings.
--
|
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | said by Hayward:said by SueS:Not everyone can paint. I would take a good painting to hang on my wall over a photograph any day.
Well that's just it, why speed hundreds or more dollars on what for all intents and purposes appears to BE a photograph??? Because of the talent, most folks cannot paint. I have and can paint, it is way harder than snapping a photo. |
|
Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | said by SueS:said by Hayward:said by SueS:Not everyone can paint. I would take a good painting to hang on my wall over a photograph any day.
Well that's just it, why speed hundreds or more dollars on what for all intents and purposes appears to BE a photograph??? Because of the talent, most folks cannot paint. I have and can paint, it is way harder than snapping a photo. Well again I think you are still missing what I was getting at....one who can paint to the degree of replicating a photograph EXACTLY as it still looks like one (no element of painting creativity)....WHY???
They could creatively and more appealing do so much more likely, that would justify the expense of a painting.
And the semi photo painting I mentioned, have and like, was maybe $100 at a benefit auction... not the hundreds or thousands asked for this stuff. And again bought for the artists interpretation and being in it, not its exactness to photo replicating source in paint like it was one.
--
|
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | Plain and simple, it is talent, do you have any idea how hard it would be to replicate a detailed photograph? You can throw paint on a canvas, and make stuff that looks good, but to make something look like a detailed photograph is exceptional talent. |
|
Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
2 edits | But again in this day and age WHY???
Again if I am going to buy a painting I want to in some way see the artist not a human nature mimic machine.
Heck even going back to Renaissance- 1800's pre photography realism portraits or the Hudson River landscape artist there was still the artist in there... You could tell a Rembrandt from someone else.
NOT just what a well taken photo taken at the same time and place would be.
If I want a photograph I'll buy one maybe even printed on canvas, but why pay someone (or as job be expect) $1000's, for a painting that is indistinguishable, and nothing of the artist other than as a machine?
--
|
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | I can't explain it any other way than it is exceptional talent. It would be a painting very few people would ever be able to make. Try painting a simple photo and you will understand the level of difficultly. |
|
Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
4 edits | said by SueS:I can't explain it any other way than it is exceptional talent. It would be a painting very few people would ever be able to make. Try painting a simple photo and you will understand the level of difficultly.
But again my question is WHY???
It was no easy thing being Rembrandt either but no mistaking him... where as these pure tech painters (no questioning its talent) can't be discerned from a photo let alone another artist... since their goal is to BE a photo. Again have to ask WHY?
Or why someone would spend $1000 for essentially a large photo of a Monopoly board.
Again its impressive technique, but totally lacking in self artistry or being, just well executed mechanics.
Conversely and artist I have several originals of, I also have a Giclee full size reproduction on canvas of one of his works of my favorite KW Bistro now long gone... original sold to the owners probably for a few 1000...and unless you know he had a very thick 3D style like Monet from a distance at full size looks very much the original I paid 300 for (The Giclee process and canvas probably cost at least half of that), and haven't seen him reproduce since.
I see mechanics mimicking art best it can, but the other way around seems really bizarre to me.
Is it beyond being a skilled robot they have no creative talent?
--
|
|
SueSPremium
join:2007-05-16
Macon, MO
kudos:2 | If I am going to paint an apple, I am going to look at an apple and paint it so it looks as much like the real apple as I can. We need to see what we are painting, why not use a photograph? I once painted a dog using a photo out of a book. Some painters try to paint stuff as realistic as possible, if you were one of those painters, why wouldn't you use a photograph?
Any painter will have their own identity in their work, no two painters work will look the same.
This is my last response. |
|
 Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | While you guys are arguing, allow me to interject with an example: »vianaarts.deviantart.com/
Carry on. |
|
