What is it that separates the two? It could be said that the two
are uniquely and distinctly different from one another. The
tools are completely different. The skills are completely
different. The vision is completely different. But, I beg the
question, are they really?
Fundamentally I can agree, that paintings use paint and a brush
and that photographs use a camera. Yet in the end, are both not
finished by uploading to the internet, or being presented on a
canvas or print? It brings me to wonder how different the two
mediums really are. If you were to see a photograph on a wall
that looked like a painting, would you think less of the art if
you found out it was a photograph disguised as a painting?
"How to Paint a Photograph" by Brooke Shaden
the fine line between painting and photograph. I am a
photographer, and therefore I would never consider the work
anything but a photograph. Yet I get criticized for claiming to
be a photographer and for claiming that the above photo is, in
fact, a photograph. Would the correct term be “digital art”? I
say it is not, because I am using a photograph as the base of
the image. But whether it is a photograph, whether or not I am a
photographer, should not be the issue at hand. The very fact
that this debate is in play reminds me that people can get so
caught up in defining art, that we forget to really look at it.
The photo I have presented is avant-garde in the sense that it
is undefinable. The idea of mixing media fascinates me, and so I
create whatever I find are in my means. It happens to be within
my means to make my photos look like paintings, or at least I
attempt it, and so I will continue. Because aside from the fact
that I am far more drawn to painting as a medium, I want to
break the boundary between the mediums. I want to explore new
ways of looking at a piece of art. I want to make people forget
what medium they are looking at. I want my photographs to be
worlds within our world, completely undefined by the way in
which they are created. I want them to stand alone, to invite
you inside and let you forget about the technique. Instead,
think about the meaning and get lost in the art.
{ 4 } Comments
Absolutely stunning!
What I love most about your ART is the depth and meaning. Paint, photo, paper, canvas…
the means doesn’t matter. The message is riveting.
Hey! let me share this story with you: A few weeks ago I helped a friend/painter/sculptor/ex-finance consultant/grandpa to edit/publish a cooking recipe book written by him (the character already sounds interesting right?), anyway, among the recipes he added scanned images of his work (some paintings and watercolors) and there was one in particular that I liked, it was a ship sailing in the sea, so I thought -or maybe I didn’t- and opened photoshop, mixed up the sky in his image with the sky of one of my photos (a simple blending/erase/change opacity thing) and showed it to him. In the end I was surprised by the result: He wasn’t expecting that I did that, I wasn’t expecting to “mess” with his images and we didn’t expect that the result was going to like us both! so, the book was published with the “photoshoped” image. He’s seventy-something, I’m 32, his work was watercolor, my photo was a digital shot, what was the importance of the medium there? that’s why I totally agree with you. Sometimes we don’t let art to “be itself” and appreciate it in its pure and essential form but we put it into classifications and mediums and styles, etc., we focus so much on these kind of things that we miss/forgot what is being said or what we can perceive with an artwork.
Thank you both! And Guille, what a story! I loved that :)
I could not agree more. And to those who are not just appreciating art for what it is, well they are the ones missing out
I admire how you can speak your mind like that, I wish I could do that sometimes. :)
{ 1 } Trackback
ммда!!…
What is it that separates the two? It could be said that the two are uniquely and distinctly different from one another. The tools are completely different…..
Post a Comment