Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Is Photography Real...
From: George Lottermoser <imagist@concentric.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:29:23 -0600

> "but you see, it isn't a fish, it is a painting of
> a fish."
> "Awfully tiny, isn't she?"

Clearly, Picasso would like people to see images for what they
are: symbolic representations, compositions, visual ideas and
would also like people to forget about images needing "be" the
object of inspiration or even "look like" the object of
inspiration.

A photograph certainly is not the reality. The map is not the
territory. A hologram is not the reality. Virtual reality is not
reality. The CD is not the concert. What would be the point? The
best paintings, photographs, drawings, what ever, hopefully do
something quite different from duplicating reality.

The photo realist painters of the 70's and 80's really put a new
twist on these ideas when they created canvases which looked more
like photographs of their subjects than paintings. So were they
paintings of the subject matter? Or were they paintings of the
photographs of the subject matter? Who cares? They sure were
enjoyable to view! And to think about! And that's the point for
me. Is it fun to look at? Does it hold my interest? Do I get a
good feeling? A challenge to my preconceptions? Teach me
something about seeing? and on an on.

George