Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]These are ad hominem tautologies. A dot is not any more or less "expressive" due to the pedigree of its creator be it Rembrandt, Richard Estes, Chuck Close or Epson 4800. You may prefer a dot of the former because you fancy its provenance, but that's a matter of connoisseurship, not a critique of the object itself. I do concede that the artists, when asked, express different things. My 4800, for instance, is fond of saying "Non-genuine inks may damage the printer," but I take this with a grain of salt in view of the expressive results I obtain with it. Here's a case in point: http://www.artnet.com/usernet/awc/awc_historyview_details.asp?aid=139829&awc_id=880&info_type_id=4 or http://tinyurl.com/l7cqaq6 The catalog reviewer for Estes' Whitney show notes the importance of the difference between the way an artist sees vs the way a camera "sees," however, the particular aspect of his vision which she cites has now been duplicated by focus stacking and HDR. I leave it to you to determine if this undercuts the artist or frees him. -Lew Schwartz On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM, George Lottermoser < george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote: > >> I wonder how those among us who feel that the final print is the only >> thing that counts, not equipment, feel about this issue. Photorealism, if >> it's limited to the definition Mark found on Google, is pretty much a >> printing technique. > > I believe one really must SEE the painting itself > to determine on which aesthetic levels these works of art actually function. > > I've seen a number of these created when the approach first hit the galleries. > They take your breath away in scale and technique. > As you move in and examine the surface of the painting > you may discover that they're indeed "paintings" > by talented painters (not mechanical printers) > with actual "expressive" brush strokes; > not unlike the old masters. > The difference being that they're taking into account > a significant knowledge of "how photographs look." > > There's another level of "photorealism" > which uses airbrush techniques; > creating a very different aesthetic experience; > much more "photographic" appearance. > > Having worked with pencils, brushes and airbrushes > I certainly respect the best of the works, artists > and their place in the history of art and painting. > >> Some years ago there was a darkroom guide (by >> Fenninger?) which suggested that you could turn your photos into artistic >> drawings by projecting your negative onto a sheet of drawing paper and >> shading in until you had a uniform grey on the paper. Then, by turning off >> the enlarger & subtracting out the negative image, you're left with a >> positive drawing. The paintings in the article are what I'd call inkjet by >> hand. > > Curious if you've seen the actual paintings? > or only the little pixelated copies of the paintings? > > As with photography: > Content, composition, color use, scale > all must come into the discussion > and any critique of the art objects > >> Doesn't apply to Chuck Close, imo. > > While I agree with you about Close. > I'm curious as to why you draw a line here with him? > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information