Painter-Lynne
Active member
Hi - hope this thread is of interest... I know I'm starting quite a few threads, I'll run out of puff soon - it's only cos I'm taking time-out today before I re-enter the breach (Painting-wise and life-wise generally).
This thread is prompted by a photo. (Incase you have a copy: National Geographic - Wildlife, The Best Photographs: "out now in your...". p15) Now photography is one of 'those' topics where artists are concerned, so I hesitate before starting this... ah, what the heck.
So.. have you ever looked at a photo and thought the same, or do you disagree and think that a painting will always say more than a photo? If you do, can you explain why that is at all? Would seeing brush marks in the image described, really add to it - if yes, go on, why? Apologies if I'm repeating a thread - done a (not too thorough) search. Have a feeling, may have asked a bigger question than intended to .... but not rightly sure.
__________________________________________________
Art or Wildlife Art? - good thread, not entirely unrelated, I suspect.
This thread is prompted by a photo. (Incase you have a copy: National Geographic - Wildlife, The Best Photographs: "out now in your...". p15) Now photography is one of 'those' topics where artists are concerned, so I hesitate before starting this... ah, what the heck.
The photo: two Grey Herons in a flap with each other. (Better credit the photographer: by Bence Máté). They're fighting. Now of all the photographs in the publication, I was gripped by this one. It was way out in front, better than the snowy owl - not just because I particularly like Grey Herons (something about how they move as well as... so much else), but because the image itself was so perfectly composed, the birds in wonderful positions, with a great colour scheme and lighting, a background that did nothing to distract but did everything to suggest - the whole combining to create an intense focus on the two birds heads and bills, entirely appropriate to the intensity of that moment of behaviour. As painters, we have such an advantage over photographers, in that we can control everything in an image - we can even completely make up a totally convincing moment - where photographers are at the mercy of circumstance. But here was a picture no painter, even the masters, I would advocate, could improve upon in any marked way.
So.. have you ever looked at a photo and thought the same, or do you disagree and think that a painting will always say more than a photo? If you do, can you explain why that is at all? Would seeing brush marks in the image described, really add to it - if yes, go on, why? Apologies if I'm repeating a thread - done a (not too thorough) search. Have a feeling, may have asked a bigger question than intended to .... but not rightly sure.
__________________________________________________
Art or Wildlife Art? - good thread, not entirely unrelated, I suspect.
