Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,276   Posts: 1,534,751   Online: 943
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,125
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli View Post
    What would be different is that you'd look at his stuff, roll your eyes and think "I know where the filters are in photoshop too, big deal" and that would be that.
    jim

    people already say that when they see a photograph, but when they try
    to reproduce something that was made on film or paper, they soon
    realize that even with the same film, camera and notes the photographer
    "gave up" in the magazine or forum or where-ever ( velveeta, 1/250S f22 &C )
    they still can't make the same print or expose film (or sen$or ) the same way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    I really don't believe I'd be thinking that. Maybe if I had a head injury, but it's not quite probable.

    The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.


    you are EXACTLY right
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  2. #12
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    I don't think he'd be working in PS for starters, even if he had been able to choose to work electronically.

    I doubt very much that he would be working with a computer for art (who knows for sure?) There were many other processes that were available during his life, including photography, yet he did what he did. Even though he worked with Philippe Halsman to produce some very cool photographs, and had allot of exposure to the process through that experience, evidenced by the intricacies of that work, he stuck to his brushes.

    Most painters still paint with a brush. I think that those means satisfy the artistic urges in tangible tactile ways that a computer screen can't. Most artistic persons are into the artifact and the way it communicates content, but more so in the creation of a physical thing that exists as we do. I think that's why there is no substitute for the real photographic print or the painting, and never really will be, among those who truly appreciate art.

    I've been thinking about it, and without everybody thinking I've gone all Shirley Mclaine, I believe that artistic artifacts convey the energy and light that the artist sent forth. For some reason I think a digital intermediary or display short circuits that. So do Sputz prints.

    I had seen Vincent Van Gogh in books and reproductions all of my life, and liked his work. I thought I knew all about it. When I saw the real paintings, they knocked me down. I could feel the presence of the man. I'll never be the same about that artist, and I will always know the difference.

    I don't think an artist like Dali would have given that up.
    Last edited by JBrunner; 01-28-2008 at 07:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    smieglitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,863
    Images
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    ...

    The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.
    That's so very wrong. It is not the same thing. Maybe it would feel similar if they had a rough canvas surface on the Wacom that yielded to pressure (not the slippery slick "pressure sensitivity" they build in) and if that tablet somehow exuded a substance with viscosity and olfactory stimulants. A stylus stroked across a digital tablet is nothing like true painting, either in execution or result.

    In fact, I would suggest that "digital painting" is further away from its parent than is "digital photography."

    Sitting at a desk marking a Wacom tablet to make "brushstrokes" on a digital image file in a software program like "Painter" is more akin to sitting at a desk marking a Wacom tablet to make corrections on a digital image file in a software program like "Photoshop."

    Getting out of the chair and using your whole body to drum paint into a canvas is totally different experience.

    A "digital painting" also lacks facture and that is one of the hallmarks of Painting.

    For a good read try James Elkins' "What Painting Is"

    Joe

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    For a good read try James Elkins' "What Painting Is"
    That book is an attempt to romanticize the medium. Painting is not alchemy, unlike the opening paragraph states, and painting was perfected only because it was profitable a couple centuries ago either for a church or the monarchy.

    Olfactory stimulants have little to do with it - that is the experience of the artist and artist only. It has no effect on the viewer.

    If experience of the artist at the time of creation had an effect on the viewer, the greatest artist would emerge who'd sandpaint with cocaine powder and the viewers would be ecstatic because the artist pushed off in the process. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

    Dali's choice of medium is not his accomplishment. It is the message and the influence on the viewer that counts. Deliver the message, conceal the artist?

    If Dali had chosen to paint watercolor, he'd have less texture... the pictures would still convey the message.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    87
    As a artist you may ask yourself

    Am I making my art or are my tools? Everytime you load a program in to your computer you have to agree to a copyright contract . The question is, would Dali agree ?

  6. #16
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    That book is an attempt to romanticize the medium. Painting is not alchemy, unlike the opening paragraph states, and painting was perfected only because it was profitable a couple centuries ago either for a church or the monarchy.

    Olfactory stimulants have little to do with it - that is the experience of the artist and artist only. It has no effect on the viewer.

    If experience of the artist at the time of creation had an effect on the viewer, the greatest artist would emerge who'd sandpaint with cocaine powder and the viewers would be ecstatic because the artist pushed off in the process. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

    Dali's choice of medium is not his accomplishment. It is the message and the influence on the viewer that counts. Deliver the message, conceal the artist?

    If Dali had chosen to paint watercolor, he'd have less texture... the pictures would still convey the message.
    While there is a point here, we're back to the old content illusion. The choice of medium isn't the accomplishment, I agree, but neither is it irrelevant. The choice of medium contributes directly to the perception of the work. Artists are free to choose their mediums, and the tools within them. The continued attempts to homogenize medium and methods as immaterial to the artifact to validate certain workflows simply points up the immaturity of certain mediums.

  7. #17
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Geez - but isn't this all a bit too smug?

    You know, conjecturing what particular media an artist, if displaced in time, would use?

    Figure it this way:

    "Imagine what Rembrandt would have been able to accomplish with Analog Photography"

    :rolleyes:
    Last edited by copake_ham; 01-28-2008 at 10:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,183
    Images
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    I really don't believe I'd be thinking that. Maybe if I had a head injury, but it's not quite probable.

    The only difference between digital painting and oil is that it takes a "ctrl+Z" to undo your last stroke. With oil you have to scrape it off, but in the end it's the same thing.

    Amusing - I took Jim's statement the other way (ie, we'd be foolishly closed-minded and discount him immediately). Guess you could read it either way.
    The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
    .

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    136
    Svend
    If you think SALVADOR Dali, he was a painter not Photoshoper. Agree?

  10. #20
    patrickjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    743
    I think Dali did just fine with what he had available. Can anyone name a famous Photoshop artist? Anyone?

    Patrick

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin