Photography vs. Painting

6/23/2009






after a line by author John Fowles


Do you agree?
Comments please.


Sources 1, 2, 3


Posted in The-Arts

Comments

Nice choice of images
Posted by moon on 6/22/2009 10:44:46 PM
Although I never thought of it in such terms, this quote (along with the potryal gogh's painting) really seems to ring true. If I think about it, photographs (unedited) capture a slice of time and the emotions that life perceives at that given moment. And a painting gives the artist the potential to capture the emotions felt across time. But with the advent of major image processing of photographs, isn't this gap getting bridged?
Posted by Sudarshan on 6/23/2009 4:21:47 AM
With another set of pictures juxtaposed, I'm sure you could easily argue the opposite. I think it's the old romantical habit of showing great appreciation for the "classical", implying that the new art form is less "real". The same can be seen in the (equally silly) comparison of "new"/electronic music vs "old"/acoustic music. Personally, I think we should acknowledge that these are different art forms, and that there are unique dimensions in both of them which you can use as an artist to explore what you want to explore.
Posted by HÃ¥kan on 6/23/2009 1:52:37 PM

Post a Comment

Name:

Email: (verification only, not displayed)  

Comment:  

Submit

Sponsors