what photography did for art
jha...@om.com.au
we focus on one level and the objects in front or behind are blurred. When
Deigo Velazquez painted Las Meninas he along with many artists
(pre-photography) painted everything in focus. This was part of the magic of
painting as the viewers perception was expanded. Today wide angle lens will
produce something similar but unless you intend to spend hours in a darkroom
it is an all or nothing solution.
In a previous posting I stated 'the human mind does not like to be overloaded
with detail, particularly in a painting. It revels in its ability to complete
parts of the picture itself. And it must be allowed the latitude (hazy bits)
to do this. The degree you allow this will say something about your
estimation of your proposed audience. My rule is to always assume they are
smarter than you, in other words leave plenty of for the imagination.
But take care. This idea of involving the imagination was the genesis of most
post 1850 art movements and experimentations. In the more extreme any
cognisant feature became a disadvantage and we saw a renaissance of two
dimentional cave painting, primitivism and total abstraction. Recognition at
any focal level was eventually eliminated until the artist produced an
article beyond the scope of the camera.
Sadly those artists felt they had to compete with a new technology. The hope
is the same mistake will not be made a second time.
John Hagan
example (if you need it):
http://www.om.com.au/cowdisley/lessons/depthofield.htm
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jonathan Clift
>The human eye, like the camera, has a limited depth of field. In other words
>we focus on one level and the objects in front or behind are blurred. When
>Deigo Velazquez painted Las Meninas he along with many artists
>(pre-photography) painted everything in focus. This was part of the magic of
>painting as the viewers perception was expanded. Today wide angle lens will
>produce something similar but unless you intend to spend hours in a darkroom
>it is an all or nothing solution.
>
1. Does the effect occur to the same extent in the human eye as it does
with a camera?
2. Are we really that aware of the effect anyway? It could be that
Velazquez painted what our normal perception of a scene is, in which
case the picture just conforms to the viewer's perception.
>In a previous posting I stated 'the human mind does not like to be overloaded
>with detail, particularly in a painting. It revels in its ability to complete
>parts of the picture itself. And it must be allowed the latitude (hazy bits)
>to do this. The degree you allow this will say something about your
>estimation of your proposed audience. My rule is to always assume they are
>smarter than you, in other words leave plenty of for the imagination.
>
I don't think filling in the gaps is about smartness. We all do it,
smart or not, though I agree it is a commendable attitude to have to
your prospective audience.
>But take care. This idea of involving the imagination was the genesis of most
>post 1850 art movements and experimentations. In the more extreme any
>cognisant feature became a disadvantage and we saw a renaissance of two
>dimentional cave painting, primitivism and total abstraction. Recognition at
>any focal level was eventually eliminated until the artist produced an
>article beyond the scope of the camera.
>
Why is this a problem? Has the audience suddenly become too dim to
understand and need their hands holding?
>Sadly those artists felt they had to compete with a new technology. The hope
>is the same mistake will not be made a second time.
>
What is this "second time" you refer to?
>John Hagan
>example (if you need it):
>http://www.om.com.au/cowdisley/lessons/depthofield.htm
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
Jonathan Clift
jha...@om.com.au
Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> jhagan wrote
>
> >The human eye, like the camera, has a limited depth of field. In other words
> >we focus on one level and the objects in front or behind are blurred. When
> >Deigo Velazquez painted Las Meninas he along with many artists
> >(pre-photography) painted everything in focus. This was part of the magic of
> >painting as the viewers perception was expanded. Today wide angle lens will
> >produce something similar but unless you intend to spend hours in a darkroom
> >it is an all or nothing solution.
> >
>
> 1. Does the effect occur to the same extent in the human eye as it does
> with a camera?
instanteanous... Hold up your thumb and try multiple focus.
> 2. Are we really that aware of the effect anyway? It could be that
> Velazquez painted what our normal perception of a scene is, in which
> case the picture just conforms to the viewer's perception.
And that is the point. Only one artist - I am aware of, Jan Vermeer, actually
differentiated between focal distances and painted them as such... 17 century
ultra-realism?
>
> >In a previous posting I stated 'the human mind does not like to be overloaded
> >with detail, particularly in a painting. It revels in its ability to complete
> >parts of the picture itself. And it must be allowed the latitude (hazy bits)
> >to do this. The degree you allow this will say something about your
> >estimation of your proposed audience. My rule is to always assume they are
> >smarter than you, in other words leave plenty of for the imagination.
> >
>
> I don't think filling in the gaps is about smartness. We all do it,
> smart or not, though I agree it is a commendable attitude to have to
> your prospective audience.
We all learn it. As visual sophistication increases so does our ability to
fill in the gaps. What is the color of your toothbrush holder?
>
> >But take care. This idea of involving the imagination was the genesis of most
> >post 1850 art movements and experimentations. In the more extreme any
> >cognisant feature became a disadvantage and we saw a renaissance of two
> >dimentional cave painting, primitivism and total abstraction. Recognition at
> >any focal level was eventually eliminated until the artist produced an
> >article beyond the scope of the camera.
> >
>
> Why is this a problem? Has the audience suddenly become too dim to
> understand and need their hands holding?
It is merely a matter of underuse of the intelligence. There 'are' levels of
visual gymnastics. Try visualising seven regular solids at once.
>
> >Sadly those artists felt they had to compete with a new technology. The hope
> >is the same mistake will not be made a second time.
> >
>
> What is this "second time" you refer to?
Upon the discovery of another you-beaut technology.
Brother Alphabet
The premise of this discussion seems to always lend too much credit to
machines. While we place a camera on high and bow down to it's mighty
power, we tend to forget that the camera would have a very hard time
finding a good composition then opening and closing its own shutter.
> The human eye has but one focal distance but its ability to alter is almost
> instanteanous... Hold up your thumb and try multiple focus.
The camera is as limited by the human eye as the eye is expanded by the
camera.
> And that is the point. Only one artist - I am aware of, Jan Vermeer, actually
> differentiated between focal distances and painted them as such... 17 century
> ultra-realism?
With the advent of the camera a large number of artists began to utilize
photographs as references...of note were Renoir, Degas, Klimt, Picasso,
etc etc...
Photographic experimentation allows for much more that the accurate
representation of "reality" - There is also a whole new world of unreality
and "impossibility" associated with photography...
Also do not forget the influence both the advent of flight and photography
had on entire movements, namely Futurism, which influenced both Dada and
Surrealism...And then look where Surrealism took photography.
> We all learn it. As visual sophistication increases so does our ability to
> fill in the gaps. What is the color of your toothbrush holder?
Mine is dark green, rather round, has 5 holes, is ceramic, and sits on the
corner of my bathroom counter behind and to the left of the sink...
Is there a point to that excersize?
> It is merely a matter of underuse of the intelligence. There 'are' levels of
> visual gymnastics. Try visualising seven regular solids at once.
Is that supposed to be difficult?
Try visualizing 7 different three dimensional objects, all floating 3
inches above a surface, rotating, and casting shadows...make sure to
visualize the shadows, and make sure the shadows move in time with the 7
objects...Then visualize a person walking into the scene and moving the
objects around...
I think the only things to be gained from these sorts of games are
headaches and the ability to visualize objects to such a degree that
people think you're rather odd.
> Upon the discovery of another you-beaut technology.
I think the prime reference in this case would be the only logically
comparable technology - The computer...
Quite frequently a comparison is made between the effects of computer
technology on art and the effects of photographic technology on art.
Many people claim that there are sweeping changes afoot, but if we rely on
history to repeat itself, which it will, we will be able to relax and
believe that nothing drastic will come of the newest of the new
technologies...The most obvious change thus far is the increasing number
of people who think they are artists because they can make a little
color-field experiment on their machines...In time, the level of computer
art will be such that anyone trying to pass themselves off as accomplished
will be compared to those who actually are.
In the early days of the camera, just about any photograph was wonderful.
Now we can see the difference between someone's holiday snapshots and
serious fine-photography.
The only barriers are those who can't tell either in the first place, and
those who don't care.
Hutto
Marilyn
What photography could have done for painting:
One of the impressionists was delighted with the camera,
he said, "now we can paint poetry." Unfortunately, this
"poetry" where one does not have to narrate or illustrate
is misunderstood. Misunderstood? some people hate it.
Maybe they don't understand written poetry with its ambiguity
and layers of meanings either.
Marilyn
Bob C
>
> jhagan wrote
>
> >The human eye, like the camera, has a limited depth of field. In other words
> >we focus on one level and the objects in front or behind are blurred. When
> >Deigo Velazquez painted Las Meninas he along with many artists
> >(pre-photography) painted everything in focus. This was part of the magic of
> >painting as the viewers perception was expanded. Today wide angle lens will
> >produce something similar but unless you intend to spend hours in a darkroom
> >it is an all or nothing solution.
> >
>
> 1. Does the effect occur to the same extent in the human eye as it does
> with a camera?
> Velazquez painted what our normal perception of a scene is, in which
> case the picture just conforms to the viewer's perception.
The effect is very similar because they are both caused by having a lens
whose width is significant. The human, however, is able to rapidly
change focal distance and incorporate all of the different images into a
single, constantly changing perception of the scene. This perception is
approximated but in no way duplicated when we depict a scene as being
completely in focus.
- Bob C.
Petra Fide
ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
>With the advent of the camera a large number of artists began to utilize
>photographs as references...of note were Renoir, Degas, Klimt, Picasso,
>etc etc...
I haven't read all of this thread so don't know if anyone
has mentioned it or not. You cite the 'advent of the camera'
and I presume you mean the invention of 'photography'
as practiced today. But don't overlook the use of the
CAMERA OBSCURA by artists for generations prior to the
invention of the photograph. One of the best-known painters
of Venice used the Camera Obscura in order to capture
the architectural detail in a photorealistic way centuries
before the advent of modern photorealism. I'm speaking
here of Tintoretto. Petra Fide.
mark webber
On 5 Sep 1998, Petra Fide wrote:
(snip)
> invention of the photograph. One of the best-known painters
> of Venice used the Camera Obscura in order to capture
> the architectural detail in a photorealistic way centuries
> before the advent of modern photorealism. I'm speaking
> here of Tintoretto. Petra Fide.
Hi Petra,
Are you sure you mean Tintoretto and not Canaletto or Guardi? The former
was a Venetian Renaissance painter who studied with Titian, but rarely
used the sort of architectural detail used by the latter two. Their work
was, I believe, assisted by camera obscura - cityscapes of Venice for the
most part - as was the work of Vermeer, unless I'm mistaken.
(At the moment I'm about 40 minutes from all of my reference books, so I
can't confirm this.)
Greetings,
Mark
Petra Fide
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>Are you sure you mean Tintoretto and not Canaletto or Guardi?
With egg on my face -- again -- I stand corrected. I was
struggling with my fast-fading memory bank to remember
when Tintoretto popped in there and sounded about right
but somehow I had the niggling feeling I was wrong but
as usual went full-steam ahead. Of course it is Canaletto.
And thanks for reminding me of Guardi. And there were
others who did similar with the camera obscura whose
names now also escape me. Do I remember Leonardo
using it too? Petra Fide.
mark webber
On 6 Sep 1998, Petra Fide wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9809051...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>
> >Are you sure you mean Tintoretto and not Canaletto or Guardi?
>
> With egg on my face -- again -- I stand corrected. I was
> struggling with my fast-fading memory bank to remember
> when Tintoretto popped in there and sounded about right
> but somehow I had the niggling feeling I was wrong but
> as usual went full-steam ahead.
That's ok, we all do it - I'm a little out on a limb myself because I'm
not near my library and can't check my facts.
> Of course it is Canaletto.
> And thanks for reminding me of Guardi. And there were
> others who did similar with the camera obscura whose
> names now also escape me. Do I remember Leonardo
> using it too? Petra Fide.
Other than Vermeer (who I suspect used it, but don't recall if I've read
documentation) I'm not sure who else may have experimented with it.
All I can say with certainty is that I can usually feel the presence of
the camera or camera obscura in the work, and that feeling is definitely
present with these three (C., G. and V.) and not with any DaVincis.
Gorky did some pretty interesting drawings based on photos, as did the
late Leland Bell. Anyone familiar with Bell's work?
Mark
Jonathan Clift
>In article <jWgE7BAz...@ipsart.demon.co.uk>,
> Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> jhagan wrote
>>
>> >The human eye, like the camera, has a limited depth of field. In other words
>> >we focus on one level and the objects in front or behind are blurred. When
>> >Deigo Velazquez painted Las Meninas he along with many artists
>> >(pre-photography) painted everything in focus. This was part of the magic of
>> >painting as the viewers perception was expanded. Today wide angle lens will
>> >produce something similar but unless you intend to spend hours in a darkroom
>> >it is an all or nothing solution.
>> >
>>
>> 1. Does the effect occur to the same extent in the human eye as it does
>> with a camera?
>instanteanous... Hold up your thumb and try multiple focus.
>
>> 2. Are we really that aware of the effect anyway? It could be that
>> Velazquez painted what our normal perception of a scene is, in which
>> case the picture just conforms to the viewer's perception.
>
>And that is the point. Only one artist - I am aware of, Jan Vermeer, actually
>differentiated between focal distances and painted them as such... 17 century
>ultra-realism?
But you said "the viewers perception was expanded".
Perhaps Vermeer used a camera.
>>
>> >In a previous posting I stated 'the human mind does not like to be overloaded
>> >with detail, particularly in a painting. It revels in its ability to complete
>> >parts of the picture itself. And it must be allowed the latitude (hazy bits)
>> >to do this. The degree you allow this will say something about your
>> >estimation of your proposed audience. My rule is to always assume they are
>> >smarter than you, in other words leave plenty of for the imagination.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think filling in the gaps is about smartness. We all do it,
>> smart or not, though I agree it is a commendable attitude to have to
>> your prospective audience.
>
>We all learn it. As visual sophistication increases so does our ability to
>fill in the gaps. What is the color of your toothbrush holder?
>
I can't be very sophisticated because I didn't manage to fill in the
gaps in your argument.
>>
>> >But take care. This idea of involving the imagination was the genesis of most
>> >post 1850 art movements and experimentations. In the more extreme any
>> >cognisant feature became a disadvantage and we saw a renaissance of two
>> >dimentional cave painting, primitivism and total abstraction. Recognition at
>> >any focal level was eventually eliminated until the artist produced an
>> >article beyond the scope of the camera.
>> >
>>
>> Why is this a problem? Has the audience suddenly become too dim to
>> understand and need their hands holding?
>
>It is merely a matter of underuse of the intelligence. There 'are' levels of
>visual gymnastics. Try visualising seven regular solids at once.
>
I'm doing that. What next? :)
Would you give us some examples of what you call "two dimentional cave
painting, primitivism and total abstraction".
--
Jonathan Clift
Iian Neill
> documentation) I'm not sure who else may have experimented with it.
> All I can say with certainty is that I can usually feel the presence of
> the camera or camera obscura in the work, and that feeling is definitely
> present with these three (C., G. and V.) and not with any DaVincis.
I am going out on a limb here myself, but I have heard that Da Vinci actually
*invented* the camera obscura; or at least, he was one of the first to devise an
instrument based on that principle.
Whether Da Vinci actually used it in his work (as some later painters did) does
seem somewhat dubious, but the chances are that he experimented with a camera
obscura simply to satisfy his curiosity regarding the laws of optics. And then
there is the rather bizarre theory that he used such a device to fake the Turin
Shroud.
Quite a feat for a Renaissance Man ...
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
Yes, I think you may be right... I seem to remember somthing about
experimentation with it - and I agree that the paintings we have left
don't have that sort of feeling so he probably didn't use it with them -
my sense of it is that linear perspectives were still an important device
for the Italians at this point, and that sort of space construction seems
more likely than C.O. generated imagery.
The Shroud? I thought that was securely dated to the late 1300s or early
1400s - I'm not sure - who could be? I'd cast my vote for Jacques Demolay
as inventer of the Shroud! But if we go that way, we have to take this to
alt.freemasonry, a very contentious gang of posters who make this
newsgroup look damned affable.
saluts,
Mark
mdeli
>In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9809051...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
>webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>
>>Are you sure you mean Tintoretto and not Canaletto or Guardi?
>
>With egg on my face -- again -- I stand corrected. I was
>struggling with my fast-fading memory bank to remember
>when Tintoretto popped in there and sounded about right
>but somehow I had the niggling feeling I was wrong but
>as usual went full-steam ahead. Of course it is Canaletto.
>And thanks for reminding me of Guardi. And there were
>others who did similar with the camera obscura whose
>names now also escape me. Do I remember Leonardo
>using it too? Petra Fide.
>
No. He came before Camera obscura.
However you forgot to mention Degas who used photographs and Picasso
who copied Photos (badly) and used an opaque projector. (nothing wrong
with this except for politically correct artzy-fartzies) All were
developments of the camara obscura.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Brother Alphabet
Given that the premise was 'Photography', I think that later incarnations
of the technology are more appropriate for the observance of widespread
changes which occurred as a result of it's invention.
By the time 'photography' WAS 'Photography', more sophisticated examples
of cameras were available.
The *significant* artists who used photography were not the musty dusty
'old masters', but those in the impressionist school and beyond.
It was during that era that the full possibilities of photography began to
be realized, and thus began the most profound effects on art as we know
it.
Of course, I do not think that previous experiments should be wholly
discounted, but I also do not think that we should begin regularly
manufacturing any of a number of Da Vinci's good ideas as substitute modes
of aeronautic transportation. Certain parts of the past, while remarkable
in their own time, obviously pale in comparison to more recent
discoveries. As in, the comparison of the camera obscura to the early
versions of the cameras used today.
Just one example: Portability. It would be hard to set up a camera obscura
in the midst of a ballet in order to capture a ballerina in motion from
above. On the other hand, even the clunkier versions of the phosphor-flash
camera could be set up in the balcony without too much fuss...Of course,
motion would cause a heinous blur, but then again, that blur was one
important lead-in to photographic studies of the figure in motion, which
was something that had a huge impact on modern art.
Other examples would be comparitive cost, time, etc. The more efficient
and less expensive a technology becomes, the easier it is for the average
person (artist) to utilize that technology.
As it is the usual parallel, take the computer for example. Most of us can
consciously remember the development of the computer since 1980. Some of
us can remember back to the computers of the 1960s. The camera obscura is
the computer of the 1960s. The camera of the impressionists is the
computer of 1981. The camera of today IS the computer of today (in some
cases).
Now, to return to my point:
The computer of the 1960s had arguably no effect on art as we know it.
The computer of 1981 had some, but little effect.
The computer of today has made enormous changes in the artworld, and is
only just beginning.
Archaic photography devices had arguably no effect on art.
The camera of the late 1800s had enormous effects.
The camera, since the turn of the century, not only effected other forms
of art, but became an art-media of its own.
I am sure it is interesting, historically, to debate who first used the
camera obscura, but as far as its impact is concerned, the only use it has
in this discussion is its role in the history of the development of
photographic technology.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
pale...@my-dejanews.com
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
> Given that the premise was 'Photography', I think that later incarnations
> of the technology are more appropriate for the observance of widespread
> changes which occurred as a result of it's invention.
>
> By the time 'photography' WAS 'Photography', more sophisticated examples
> of cameras were available.
>
> The *significant* artists who used photography were not the musty dusty
> 'old masters', but those in the impressionist school and beyond.
>
> It was during that era that the full possibilities of photography began to
> be realized, and thus began the most profound effects on art as we know
> it.
>
In a sense, was it not photography that freed the impressionists and beyond to
paint in other than a photo-realistic manner?
Certainly the ability to draw well and render images "realisticly" are all
part of craft. But the ability to suggest, and evoke a response with that
mere suggestion, to convey a complex idea with a few simple lines ... that is
art.
This is not to say that the photo-realistic or the photograph are not art.
It has always been easy for me to be sidetracked in detail and be so impressed
by craft that I missed the art in a piece. I have also seen detail used to
conceal a lack of art.
Similarly, both the sonnet and haiku can be either marks on paper or poetry.
With haiku it is more readily apparent which is which and there is less margin
for error.
Interesting thoughts, Brother Alphabet, thank you.
--
"If you always do what you always did,
You'll always get what you always got."
mdeli
>
>In a sense, was it not photography that freed the impressionists and beyond to
>paint in other than a photo-realistic manner?
Name five paintings you would mistake for photographs. I doubt that
you can. Photography has nothing to do with impressionism. Many
Painters used photographs including Degas, Picasso, Dali etc.
>
>Certainly the ability to draw well and render images "realisticly" are all
>part of craft. But the ability to suggest, and evoke a response with that
>mere suggestion, to convey a complex idea with a few simple lines ... that is
>art.
Yes, check out cartoons and comic books.
>
>This is not to say that the photo-realistic or the photograph are not art.
>
>It has always been easy for me to be sidetracked in detail and be so impressed
>by craft that I missed the art in a piece. I have also seen detail used to
>conceal a lack of art.
Like where?
If you rubbed out the detail would you then be left with ART (whatever
that is)
I have often seen a lack of any attention to detail reveal a total
lack of skill. Like in Cezanne, Matisse and Picasso.