Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
a painting vs. a picture
0 views
Skip to first unread message
William DeRaymond
Sep 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/15/95
to
a painting embodies the motif, the medium, and the expression of the
artist - her/his intelligence, feeling, intuition, and general
understanding of the art form.
artist - her/his intelligence, feeling, intuition, and general
understanding of the art form.
In a picture what dominates is the image.
monty Kane
Sep 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/17/95
to
William DeRaymond (dray...@wco.com) wrote:
: a painting embodies the motif, the medium, and the expression of the
: a painting embodies the motif, the medium, and the expression of the
: artist - her/his intelligence, feeling, intuition, and general
: understanding of the art form.
: understanding of the art form.
: In a picture what dominates is the image.
Hmmm... seems to me a photograph, say, or an image created through some
other means than by painting, could fulfill the definition you give here
of a painting. I'd say the IMAGE can be infused with the intelligence,
feeling, and intuition of the artist. Blah, blah, blah, maybe I'll just
shut up and go paint something.
Monty
Matthew
Sep 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/17/95
to
You might be making a lot of dedicated photagraphers angry with
this!
this!
I'm not a photagrapher...but there has to be a lot of respect
for them. Perhaps the medium of the the paper itself and the
grouping of the images in the "picture" shed light on the
paticular persons personality, and their creativeness, and
their intelligence, et cetera.
who knows...their is usually meaning in the way every "artist"
expresses themselves. in just depends on them...Not really what
someone says it should be and that's that.
thanks all..
William DeRaymond
Sep 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/18/95
to
I don't think comparing photography to painting is appropriate. They are
two different mediums. I use a camera, but I don't consider myself a
photographer nor do I care to explore the dynamics of the medium in a way
that someone who has devoted themselves to it would. I am a painter and
printmaker, and have explored a great deal with regards to these mediums.
I have a very specific regard for seeing the artist's expression when it
concerns these mediums. In other words, what does the artist share of
her/himself? Do they express the concepts laid down on them by the
culture or are they expressing themselves directly. Have they looked at
the world with their own eyes? What are they saying about their
aesthetic understanding with regards to the possibilities of the medium
itself. If something can be expressed in words for example, what is the
value in painting it? It better be the 'painting' of it, All the great
artists bring themselves to and into their work. A still life by Cezanne
is not simply apples and pears, but philosophical statements of the
nature of visual reality, and I'm not specifically referring to
symbolism, but his aesthetic.
What I really am dealing with here, is explaining a way of looking
at the artist's motivation as reflected in the work produced, AND
explaining the values I hold dear.
two different mediums. I use a camera, but I don't consider myself a
photographer nor do I care to explore the dynamics of the medium in a way
that someone who has devoted themselves to it would. I am a painter and
printmaker, and have explored a great deal with regards to these mediums.
I have a very specific regard for seeing the artist's expression when it
concerns these mediums. In other words, what does the artist share of
her/himself? Do they express the concepts laid down on them by the
culture or are they expressing themselves directly. Have they looked at
the world with their own eyes? What are they saying about their
aesthetic understanding with regards to the possibilities of the medium
itself. If something can be expressed in words for example, what is the
value in painting it? It better be the 'painting' of it, All the great
artists bring themselves to and into their work. A still life by Cezanne
is not simply apples and pears, but philosophical statements of the
nature of visual reality, and I'm not specifically referring to
symbolism, but his aesthetic.
What I really am dealing with here, is explaining a way of looking
at the artist's motivation as reflected in the work produced, AND
explaining the values I hold dear.
Respectfully, William
Matthew
Sep 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/18/95
to
And by-the-way...sorry for the spelling error...
"photographer"
it was late, and I was tired....Thanks!
William DeRaymond
Sep 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/18/95
to mwor...@ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu
I wan't referring to photography, but to painting. I don't think the two
mediums can really be compared. Apples and oranges. When
working or looking at a painting, if what you are focused on primarily is
the 'picture' or image, whether as the artist or viewer, you miss the
'painting'- the artist's expression.
So, when the focus of the artist is to create an image and in that
process technique dominates the artist's expression,and the brush, the
image becomes more important than the moment to moment flow of the
artist's consciousness in relationship to the subject matter and the
medium (color, brush, surface, motif, and the artist's own feelings and
thoughts,). The resulting work is less a painting and more a picture(it
is also conceptually oriented and less involved with direct experience).
This is just a way of defining. My own personal desire is to see people
be more concerned with painting than making pictures. Of course, I think
that there should still be representation (relationship with so-called
'external reality') but even if the image is 'abstract', this same
definition applies.
Respectfully, William
mediums can really be compared. Apples and oranges. When
working or looking at a painting, if what you are focused on primarily is
the 'picture' or image, whether as the artist or viewer, you miss the
'painting'- the artist's expression.
So, when the focus of the artist is to create an image and in that
process technique dominates the artist's expression,and the brush, the
image becomes more important than the moment to moment flow of the
artist's consciousness in relationship to the subject matter and the
medium (color, brush, surface, motif, and the artist's own feelings and
thoughts,). The resulting work is less a painting and more a picture(it
is also conceptually oriented and less involved with direct experience).
This is just a way of defining. My own personal desire is to see people
be more concerned with painting than making pictures. Of course, I think
that there should still be representation (relationship with so-called
'external reality') but even if the image is 'abstract', this same
definition applies.
Respectfully, William
William DeRaymond
Sep 22, 1995, 3:00:00 AM9/22/95
to
Matthew, I thought I'd respond a little further to your reply. I don't
dislike the 'raft of the medusa'. I'm sure to see it 'live ' would be
quite something. However, I don't consider it something I emulate as an
artist. It seems to me to basically be a monument to craft and
technique, like all the neo-classical stuff. The modern revolution of
the mid 19th century was directly counter to this sort of history
painting. The art form blossomed and matured during this period. This is
a very important subject, which I don't feel has been very well covered
by the history books or the modern academies. 'Impressionism' and post-
impressionism are basically pigeon-holed historically. To me, while
there are threads of true painting through-out history, these are the
true modern masters. No longer do they try to hide the fact that they
are painters. The brush becomes a conscious expression. It becomes a
moment to moment dance of brush, motif, color, and artist's personality-
so called impressionism. I call it modernism- which I believe translates
to 'in the moment' or 'of the moment'. I think the moment is the eternal
here and now. Painting can tune you into this. Gericault's painting
does not express this but conceptually- the story line. Cezanne said- If
you want to paint avoid the literary spirit...'
This is large subject. I hope some of these thoughts are of use to you.
May your practice thrive.- William
dislike the 'raft of the medusa'. I'm sure to see it 'live ' would be
quite something. However, I don't consider it something I emulate as an
artist. It seems to me to basically be a monument to craft and
technique, like all the neo-classical stuff. The modern revolution of
the mid 19th century was directly counter to this sort of history
painting. The art form blossomed and matured during this period. This is
a very important subject, which I don't feel has been very well covered
by the history books or the modern academies. 'Impressionism' and post-
impressionism are basically pigeon-holed historically. To me, while
there are threads of true painting through-out history, these are the
true modern masters. No longer do they try to hide the fact that they
are painters. The brush becomes a conscious expression. It becomes a
moment to moment dance of brush, motif, color, and artist's personality-
so called impressionism. I call it modernism- which I believe translates
to 'in the moment' or 'of the moment'. I think the moment is the eternal
here and now. Painting can tune you into this. Gericault's painting
does not express this but conceptually- the story line. Cezanne said- If
you want to paint avoid the literary spirit...'
This is large subject. I hope some of these thoughts are of use to you.
May your practice thrive.- William
0 new messages