Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2014/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] Photorealism
From: george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:48:47 -0600
References: <721308355.562672.1389519073906.JavaMail.www@wsfrf1310> <CEF86BEC.16617%mark@rabinergroup.com> <CAFuU78cTNtpRwy8A3puhfQ6oE_cLf=PxkO24yvQyBrqGcjwwwg@mail.gmail.com> <FF3BE616-6BE8-48D0-BBEF-6F79AFB3A371@icloud.com> <CAFuU78eRZSQabhCoY0+u10ELX4JgPujxK0ub7NGoMGh3FJiHiw@mail.gmail.com>
On Jan 17, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> 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.
While this may be true for "dots"
I don't see it as true for "brush strokes."
Looking at paintings one can see far more than dots.
One sees transparent layers of paint,
sitting next to opaque impastos,
and strokes
which offer optical illusions of various textures, materials
and other effects.
speaking of the actual aesthetic qualities of these objects
without standing in front of them
makes very little sense.
Regards,
George Lottermoser
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
Replies:
Reply from lew1716 at gmail.com (Lew Schwartz) ([Leica] Photorealism)
In reply to:
Message from philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard at sfr.fr) ([Leica] Photorealism)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Photorealism)
Message from lew1716 at gmail.com (Lew Schwartz) ([Leica] Photorealism)
Message from george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Photorealism)
Message from lew1716 at gmail.com (Lew Schwartz) ([Leica] Photorealism)