Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle |
| Date | 03/18/2014 10:05 (03/18/2014 10:05) |
| Message-ID | <lg9294$hud$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | PeterN (8h & 11m) Rikishi42 (1d, 11h & 55m) |
Le 18/03/14 03:34, Floyd L. Davidson a écrit :
Floyd L. DavidsonThe problem with photography is that it is art, but also many other things. It is used as memory help, as documentary, as scientific investigation mean...
Painting and photography do happen to be art forms where one need not know what it is they are creating.
In any form of art, it is not needed to know what you are creating : by this, I want to say that the important part, the part that makes the difference between art and skill in in that elusive, unknown digging. Art and science are closely related, they are means to explore and find and express truth : not same truth about the same things, may be.
It's often pointed
out that there are no "accidentally" great paintings, while any dolt with a camera can produce a number of great photographs if they push the shutter button often enough.I dont support that either. I co-admin a small group in dA, accepting or rejecting photos. I have seen enough push-button productions to say that it (great photographies by monkeys) never happens. Sadly. But on the same time, some good artist relies on purpose on accidents ; still, they are able to make the difference. Luck is another thing than randomness ; to get luck, you should be at the right place at the right moment with your eyes open and your gear ready. Some type of photographies relies heavily on multiple shoots : I am thinking about sport photography but there are others. May be wildlife ?
But by the same
token many if not most of the world's really great paintings are not one off works of art. Some take months, and multiple versions on the same canvas, to find exactly the mix that the painter wants. I suppose there are two kinds of versions too, one that is "Well, that isn't what I was thinking of" and so it's time to restart that part; or the "Heh, the paint looks nice, lets put some over here too and see if it's okay".I am not a painter, but I know many painters, good and bad and in between. And I like art. The quality of the result is totally unrelated to the time spend on it. Some people take time, some people are quick. Some techniques requires their own time -oils must dry but allow for more changes than acryls, aquarel does not allow any changes and you must work fast. One of my friend paint "a fresco" the traditionnal way, there is 6 to 8 hours "open time" to work. Of course you plan, draw, etc...She also makes other kind of paintings, inks, etc...One of the most frequent question (and one of the dullest, too) you can hear when exhibiting is "how much time did you spend on that ?" (ie, sweat makes value) Since she is so nice and is embarrassed by the stupidity of the question, I suggested her my answer : 50 years of life and some time.
Noëlle Adam
03/13/2014-
-
-
