Tom Fenwick wrote:
> Yes and no; as posted it was a pretty accurate representation, but it was
> painted/drizzled/splattered. I wasn't over keen on the original; the photo
> is quite a small portion of the painting...
>
> Tom
>
> On 10/12/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but I viewed the horse as a chalk drawing which
>> meant the original would have had a rather flat look. That's why I
>> preferred your original to Moose's jazzed up version. But if you tell
>> me that is was a painting and Moose's looks more like the original then
>> I'll change my view. Just my particular bias to keep things looking
>> more or less like real life... except, of course, beautiful, young 60
>> year olds who want to look a few years younger. :-)
>>
Tastes and opinions vary. I do in many cases like to try to create an
accurate representation of my subjects, especially natural ones.
On the other hand, I'm aware that our visual system is not even as
unbiased as a camera. So if I take a picture of a landscape and the
immediate result is not as I recall it, I am quite happy to alter the
image to more closely conform with my recollection. As there is no
absolute way to check, and anyway I know my imaging system differs
considerably from that of the photographic imaging system, I feel I've
not done any disservice to accuracy.
Certainly, this is in the traditions of much landscape painting and of
the legendary landscape photographers of the early last century, who did
all sorts of things to their images in the darkroom to match the vision
in their mind.
On the other hand, I consider portrait photography to be as much art as
accurate reproduction. In addition to the artful use of makeup,
lighting, props, backdrops, etc., a good photographer elicits a human
response from the subject that results in a good portrait. So I see a
portrait as something unlike any image of the subject that would be
encountered in everyday interaction with the subject. I don't in the
least disagree that a good photographer may often elicit a response that
is revealing of the subject's true character. So a portrait may be both
not true to life and unusually true to life at the same time. It is, in
any case, at least partly a creation of craft or art, however you may
wish to call it, rather than "like real life".
I feel that the same situation may apply to some inanimate subjects ones
encounters. Wandering about in Camden, ME one slightly foggy day, I
encountered an outdoor table with a painted top. Flat light and faded
paint left it fairly blah, but I saw something else in it. So I stood on
a chair and took a picture. With some perspective correction and other
PS work, I had what I had only envisioned at the beginning
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Creatures/pages/DSCF0510.htm>. As a
found object, the table is interesting, but I find it much more
interesting and pleasing to me as recreated into something like what I
imagine the original artist's creation or intent may have been. But I
don't really know, and the image must stand on it's own merits.
I felt the same way about Tom's picture of the horse painting. As a
found object, it's mildly interesting. As a collaborative work of art by
the original artist, Tom and then me, I find the resulting image
arresting. Whether it is an accurate representation of the found object
or not isn't of concern to me. As with the detail hidden in posted
images, I really enjoy seeing something strong hiding in plain sight
under a rather ordinary appearing image.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|