On Jan 15, 2009, at 6:46 AM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> If you want proof, look at how readily people buy good watercolour,
> oil and
> acrylic paintings for their houses. And pay a heap more than they
> will for a
> photographic print.
>
> These usually are not at all sharp by photographic standards, and
> often
> have considerably greater colour saturation than we usually think OK.
> Further, the colours used may bear NO relation to the actual colour
> of any
> subject that might have been used for the image created.
I've been observing this since moving to Maine in 1992. There are a
number of selling painters in this area, and my extended family
spends a fair amount of money on art, to the degree that occasionally
one or another of them will actually commission a painting. In almost
all cases, the artwork is of recognizable subjects, but rendered in a
most unrealistic manner. Highly stylized would be a kind way to put
it. One cousin has her house decorated with many paintings on Maine
themes, and while they are recognizable as islands and shorelines and
such, they bear little resemblance to actuality. That said, they are,
as a rule, very pleasing in color, texture and that indefinable
something art lovers call "mood."
Some of this art I find I can sit and contemplate and let my mind
wander where it will, and I think that's all I can really ask of a
piece of commercial art. It's good, it keeps me occupied, but it
doesn't plant a spear in the center of my soul. Other pieces seem
more decorative, in that they match decor, room ambiance, window
views and such. It's almost as though they aren't meant to be looked
at directly, but rather to be a part of an overall effect.
My photography customers, on the other hand, seem mostly to be after
something close to realism. They are highly partial to places and
things they can see for themselves, but not in the way I see them.
First they want to know if it really looked like that. When I answer
in the affirmative, they sigh or make other noises and allow as how
they wish they could have seen such a sight for themselves. In some
cases, I suggest they can if only they are willing to get up at 3:30
a.m. and drive to a particularly spectacular location or another.
This, they seem unwilling to do, as they are on holiday and getting
up early is not on the agenda, never mind that in this part of
Occupied Canada, if you rise late on holiday, then they sun is likely
approaching zenith, and the sort of thing you see in my photos is not
accessible in that light.
The other factor I mentioned in another post, and that is that many
of the views are available only during late fall through early
spring, when the light is very southerly, and has a kind of weak,
translucent quality that it lacks in the harsher, more direct days of
summer, when the vast majority of incomers are here. (Note a little
northern UK lingo there. <g>)
> I was forced to realise this too, when I noticed that one
> particular New
> Zealand photographer who consistently wins prizes in contests,
> morphs his
> photos using the most unreal colours and level of detail one could
> imagine.
That's why I don't enter contests and competitions. <g>
FWIW, Bob Whitmire
www.bwp33.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|