To All the Photo-Realists
Jonsmind
that photo-realism isn't exactly my proverbial "cup of tea". I
consider myself, a reasonable guy, and know and respect that there are
people out there, who consider PR a desired artform, but what I can't
stomach, is self-righteous types like Mani Deli, and Mr. Ng, who label
practitioners of other genres, as "charlatans" or "mad men". I'd like
to ask these people, whether they have young children , and if they
do, do they berate them for leaving their "lacking in photo-realism'
pictures, on the refrigerator door, and scold them by telling them to
stop drawing red trees, and green dogs. To put it sarcastically, why
do you even bother picking up a paintbrush, with the intention to
paint, when you can take pictures all along? That brings me to a
topic, that's been bugging me for years, and that is, if photography
had been invented, let's say, in the middle ages, how many less
painters would there have been.
As for Mr. Ng's depictions of children, I prefer Mary Cassatt any
day, over yours.
My philosophy about my painting does not stem from some fascistic
frame of mind that I'm superior to everyone else, and I don't delude
myself to believe that I'm divinely, responsibly for bringing
sensibility back to art. It's really quite perverse in my book. I
paint , the way that I see AND FEEL, and I don't try to have my sense
of adventure or passion, surgically removed, like an appendix or
tonsils. There is truth, behind "No skill, No art" but there is also
passion, and sense of adventure, with which art cannot be without,
either. Having stated my opinions on photo-realism, I must reiterate,
that to everyone, to his his/her own. I don't exactly dislike that
genre, in fact as realism in general goes, I admire Manet, Degas,
Fantin Latour among others, but I'm also aware that there is enough
abstraction in their paintings, that I can tell the Manets from the
Rembrandts from the Degas from the Duerers from the Holbeins ....
denise
that was so..so what's the word I want...so what you want a newsgroup to
be. Less contention more discussion. thanks for that. d.
Erik A. Mattila
> While my personal credo is, "to every artist, his/her own", I admit,
> that photo-realism isn't exactly my proverbial "cup of tea". I
> consider myself, a reasonable guy, and know and respect that there are
> people out there, who consider PR a desired artform, but what I can't
> stomach, is self-righteous types like Mani Deli, and Mr. Ng, who label
> practitioners of other genres, as "charlatans" or "mad men". I'd like
> to ask these people, whether they have young children , and if they
> do, do they berate them for leaving their "lacking in photo-realism'
> pictures, on the refrigerator door, and scold them by telling them to
> stop drawing red trees, and green dogs. To put it sarcastically, why
> do you even bother picking up a paintbrush, with the intention to
> paint, when you can take pictures all along? That brings me to a
> topic, that's been bugging me for years, and that is, if photography
> had been invented, let's say, in the middle ages, how many less
> painters would there have been.
I'm not certain of your understanding of the term "photorealism" but I
suggest that you consider this: The photorealist school aims at painting
that mimics the photograph itself. Not "reality" or "realism" as we
understand it in painting, but that species of realism that is
championed by the camera. You may be using the term "photorealism" in a
differnet sense. It's just not clear to me. But I would suggest that
if you mean "realism" in general, that you not call it "photorealism"
simply because the problems of the "photorealists" are quite different
that the problems of more generic "realists."
>
> As for Mr. Ng's depictions of children, I prefer Mary Cassatt any
> day, over yours.
> My philosophy about my painting does not stem from some fascistic
> frame of mind that I'm superior to everyone else, and I don't delude
> myself to believe that I'm divinely, responsibly for bringing
> sensibility back to art. It's really quite perverse in my book. I
> paint , the way that I see AND FEEL, and I don't try to have my sense
> of adventure or passion, surgically removed, like an appendix or
> tonsils. There is truth, behind "No skill, No art" but there is also
> passion, and sense of adventure, with which art cannot be without,
> either. Having stated my opinions on photo-realism, I must reiterate,
> that to everyone, to his his/her own. I don't exactly dislike that
> genre, in fact as realism in general goes, I admire Manet, Degas,
> Fantin Latour among others, but I'm also aware that there is enough
> abstraction in their paintings, that I can tell the Manets from the
> Rembrandts from the Degas from the Duerers from the Holbeins ....
Well, see...I've enjoyed the photorealists because they have done a good
job of painting what a photograph looks like. It amazes me, really. I
mean to be able to look deeply into the photographic image and translate
silver nitrate events into oil painting and so on. But the artists
you've mentioned weren't "photorealists" by any stretch of the
imagination. The impact of the philosophy of French Naturalism had a
dramatic impact on the painters you have mentioned, and in fact you
could make the argument tha Degas was influenced by the camera - but
only in the area of cropping. But these painters did not entertain the
problem of the bias of the photographic image, where the much later
"photorealists" did. I think that you need to sort that out for the
sake of clarity. Otherwise I do agree with what you have stated.
Erik
Inchy Lahda
>Well, see...I've enjoyed the photorealists because they have done a good
>job of painting what a photograph looks like. It amazes me, really.
I've seen enough "photorealist" works up close
to know that many if not most look like photos
only in photos (reproductions). When you see
them up close, the old rule applies - "stand
back from the work far enough so the brush
work doesn't distract from the image" or whatever
that old rule is supposed to mean. Some of the
photorealists work HUGE, so that standing back
far enough in a museum or gallery setting is
sometimes not possible. My tuppence worth!
Paul Mesken
Corot wrote in a sketchbook : "Be guided by feeling alone. Reality is
part of Art : feeling completes it... what we feel is real too.".
Photorealism might actually be less realistic than other forms because
(if pursued the most fanatically) it leaves the human onlooker out of
the equation and uses the eye as nothing more than a camera.
But it is the human onlooker that makes the painting realistic for in
reality all paintings are nothing more than flat patchworks of colors.
No painting would be a depiction of anything if it weren't for the
human onlooker. Only if the painting resonates deeply in the onlooker,
will the onlooker consider the painting to be "true". Therefor : the
combination Photo-Realism could be considered a subtle oxymoron unless
it's meant as non-representational (but the term "realism" suggests
otherwise). Realism (in Art) is not objective at all, it's subjective
because it does not exist outside the human onlooker. But the "Photo"
part suggests the objectivity of a camera which doesn't require a
human, it's simply a natural process.
A painter might want to depict sadness photorealistically. She simply
takes a "snapshot" of someone who is sad. But in doing so she doesn't
amplify certain external signs of sadness which _are_ amplified by the
human perceptual system (we notice sadness in someone else because of
certain things we are very sensitive to). She doesn't emphasize that
what sets the "face" of sadness apart from the face of other feelings
(the contrast).
It might even turn out sadness is not at all recognized in the
"snapshot painting". Let's not forget that good caricatures are more
easily recognized than photos. Even in "realistic art" certain
contrasts between visual elements are "played up", like the cool/warm
relations between the light and the shadows of skin (exaggerated
greens and reds, for example, are quite commonly employed) to get a
more "snappy" picture. A picture "reads" better because of this but of
course the real photorealistic painter can not employ this method.
Furthermore : both photos and paintings have common shortcomings :
they only appeal to the visual sense (leaving out stimuli for all the
others), they are flat and they can't express change in time. If
recognition relies on some of these things that cannot be depicted
photorealistically then other (some symbolic) means must be found to
do so (blurred images, speed lines, off balance postures to indicate
movement, etc.). But in photorealism such means can not be employed
and thus less can be depicted (minimizing good recognition).
Also : the "snapshot painting" doesn't communicate deliberately about
how sadness feels like to ourselves (only incidentally). We not only
recognize the external face of sadness but also recognize the feeling
of sadness inside ourselves (BTW see "Soldier" with Kurt Russell, he
nicely shows this soldier, trained from birth, who only knows "fear
and discipline", experiences for the first time other feelings like
sadness and love). Such internal things can only be expressed
symbolically (although visual means like lighting, colors, etc. can be
employed for this in order not to disrupt the depiction of the
external face too much).
Because of the symbolic nature of art, it should be clear that even
photorealism might not be so realistic in other cultures. Photorealism
leaves out a lot of things which might be recquired in other cultures
before it is considered the epitome of realism.
Gorne
> I can't stomach, is self-righteous types like Mani Deli, and Mr. Ng, who >label practitioners of other genres, as "charlatans" or "mad men".
because, in spite of its obvious attempt to use photography, these
works do not record mechanically but, sometime unwittingly, select
what the artist see as relevant. Phot realism is, in my view,
revealing by what as been expunged from the photo, what has been
changed and transformed, in my opinion, humanized.
Similarly, Mani and his childish tantrums and hyperbolic expressions
of being tired with modern art does contribute to this forum... Even
when he get us sick in the stomach.
In my opinion the question he raise: Can we declare that a set of
artistic values has, at least for the present, enough agreement in its
favour to be regarded as objective human values. (Universal?)
This would not give it certainty for changes can occur with time, but
it would give us the possibility to discuss what belong to this set at
present and what does not.
And this conversation is well suited for this forum.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>While my personal credo is, "to every artist, his/her own", I admit,
>that photo-realism isn't exactly my proverbial "cup of tea". I
>consider myself, a reasonable guy, and know and respect that there are
>people out there, who consider PR a desired artform, but what I can't
>stomach, is self-righteous types like Mani Deli, and Mr. Ng, who label
>practitioners of other genres, as "charlatans" or "mad men".
Your problem is that you divide art into what you like and
photorealism. This is stupid.
Nor do I consider artist charlatans as mad men. I consider those who
make fortunes at it very clever and I admire them for that. More money
to them.
> if photography
>had been invented, let's say, in the middle ages, how many less
>painters would there have been.
>
none
> As for Mr. Ng's depictions of children, I prefer Mary Cassatt any
>day, over yours.
> My philosophy about my painting does not stem from some fascistic
>frame of mind that I'm superior to everyone else,
Lets see them!
>There is truth, behind "No skill, No art"
really?
> but there is also
>passion, and sense of adventure, with which art cannot be without,
not without skill!
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Erik A. Mattila
Yeah, I know what you mean. I saw a huge Close at the Moscone Center in
SF once. It was a portrait of a Pow Wow dancer, and looked like it came
off a page of National Geographic. But when you got about 20' away, you
noticed that it was all made out of renderings of beads. My guess is
that each bead was about 2" high. I was impressed, having painted faux
beadwork myself a time or two.
>
>
Jonsmind
You asked that of me, a couple a weeks ago, and I obliged you, way
back then, with a link to my site. I guess you were too
self-absorbed, with your bullshit, to even notice.
John Ng
> day, over yours.
I am an amateur! I do not consider my pieces examples of great art...
never said it too.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
John Ng
> You asked that of me, a couple a weeks ago, and I obliged you, way
> back then, with a link to my site. I guess you were too
> self-absorbed, with your bullshit, to even notice.
What about me? Your art is definitely superior to my doodling... let's see them
Andrew D
willi...@netscape.net (Jonsmind) wrote:
> While my personal credo is, "to every artist, his/her own", I admit,
> that photo-realism isn't exactly my proverbial "cup of tea". I
> consider myself, a reasonable guy, and know and respect that there are
> people out there, who consider PR a desired artform, but what I can't
> stomach, is self-righteous types like Mani Deli, and Mr. Ng, who label
> practitioners of other genres, as "charlatans" or "mad men". I'd like
> to ask these people, whether they have young children , and if they
> do, do they berate them for leaving their "lacking in photo-realism'
> pictures, on the refrigerator door, and scold them by telling them to
> stop drawing red trees, and green dogs.
We don't usually berate young children for their poor, and sometimes
entertaining, command of language - but that doesn't mean that poor
spelling and grammar should be heralded as great art in adulthood.
Andy D.
Jonsmind
Doesa
Jonsmind
Makes you feel like a real fucking man, does it, Andy? Berating
others for their falacies. Since you've pointed out that I'm a poor
speller, would you please point out my mispellings? I can't seem to
find them.
Doesa
Mani Deli
wrote:
If the painting looks like its was done by an eight year old as so
much in museums does these days, its the artist's problem not the
viewers.