PART TWO ~ "Art Should not be a Copy of Reality … One of the Damned Things is Enough!":
NOTE: If You Missed the Discussion Preceding this One … it's at this Link …
https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/42909/art-should-not-be-a-copy-of-reality-one-of-the-damned-things-is-enough#cm923357
Continuing …
There are a number of variations of the quote in the headline regarding Art and Reality … https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/10/01/copy/
… ultimately, I think it's a philosophical matter, one perhaps of preference, or, of a viewer's presupposition regarding what "Art is supposed to be."
When I don't feel like "just doing photography," I fight my own presuppositions about "what art should be," and, force myself to create something my presuppositions tell me that "it shouldn't." And, if I let myself go, sometimes I create something I cannot artistically "justify" necessarily … but if it's something I like …
I have created quite a few images, some more “plausible” in terms of what could be deemed “reality” albeit otherwise contrived, and/or digital conglomerates. Some might be considered “fantasy, others “surreal,” and others possibly in the19th Century Hudson River painters’ style known as “Romantic Realism/Idealism” and “Luminism.”
And for sure, some seem to evade categorization/classification.
Here are four such images that do not quite fit the literal meaning of the word "reality".
Coreopsis Flowers and Buds
© A. Mac/A.G.
Geranium Alter-ego
© A. Mac/A.G.
Starry Night at a Forest Opening
© A. Mac/A.G.
Tropical Queen Butterfly
© A. Mac/A.G.
Tags
Who is online
416 visitors
Enjoy, criticize, comment … all responses are appreciated.
I don't see the Coreopsis photo being described as "unreal". It looks pretty real and accurate to me, perhaps only softened a touch. The others vary in degree of unreality.
Maybe one seems to be alight and the others around it have a bit of an aura?
Other than the central blossom, the others are slightly out of focus, and the central blossom appears to giving off a kind of radial effect to its right, and there is a sun flare between the two blossoms - all giving off a combination of reality with lesser creative application.
The geranium has a more unworldly appearance, a sort of Pandora effect. The Starry Sky is one of many that A.Mac has produced, and I like that appearance, in fact one he created of a silhouetted tree framing a starry sky in the past was one of my favourite photos.
The butterfly with a sun-flare head does not "say" anything to me.
Read the stylizations in the italicized paragraph above the images, Buzz. None of the posted images are literal, each is pushed in terms of light and form ... the degree to which represents departure from “photo realism”.
The extent of departure will affect viewer reaction as it pertains to challenging what presuppositions that viewer might hold, consciously or otherwise, which gives any given image either power, or, a mundane quality.
None of the four images are portrayed as seen in nature ... as in ... reality.
My favorite is the alter ego.
I'm with you on that.
Are you seeking visual contributions, or just textual comments? I should have asked on Part 1 before posting photos.
Anyone coming to my image articles are always welcome to post images they feel will add to the thread.
FYI:
"A discourse on Romanticism might appear to be out of place when discussing American history. The philosophy is neither American in origin, nor is traditionally associated with the country. Romanticism was a philosophical movement from the early nineteenth century that “arose among European intellectuals such as Johann Goethe and Thomas Carlyle” that sought to idealize the natural world amidst a rapidly industrializing continent."
In my opinion, this is as relevant today … in some ways even more so … than in the past.
Totally relevant Mac. Not confined to the 18th and 19th Centuries nor to Europe either. One of the great artists of our time was born in your own town; Philadelphia. I thought I had seen something similar in style to your shots before. I checked and there are many similarities between your work and that of Maxfield Parrish. Other than Parrish working with paint and you with photography, you could have come out of the same school, both of you with the rank of Master Artist. I'm neither an artist nor an art critic, but I know beauty when I see it and would place the two of you on the same level and don't think I'd get much contradiction.
Hear hear!!!
It was a photo that A.Mac posted recently that brought Maxfield Parrish to mind, which is why I posted the article I just did about Maxfield Parrish's work.
Your complimentary words are more than I deserve but I am flattered and grateful nevertheless.
Understanding Parrish's technique is part of the key to appreciating what he achieved in his paintings. In my opinion, Parrish and some of the so-called "Old Masters," understood centuries prior to some of "photoshopping," what photoshopping can create in digital, graphic imaging.
I need to explain.
Artists like Titian ( c.1488–1576), Italian painter; Italian name Tiziano Vecellio, who was the most important painter of the Venetian school, experimented with vivid colors and often broke conventions of composition. He painted many sensual mythological works, including Bacchus and Ariadne ( c.1518–23).
And how did he arrive at those "vivid colors" is interesting, particularly since some of the inherently vivid colors that came via paint chemistry and technology … like cadmium red, et al, did not come until centuries after Titian!
• Start with priming a canvas or board with a ground medium like gesso, making the painting's carrier impervious to the "sinking" of subsequently applied paint.
• On top of that ground, apply the most opaque, white, base oil paint and allow it to dry completely.
And then … create what today would be the LAYERS feature in Photoshop and other image-editing applications … but, not electronically, rather in translucent glazes … paint in pure, single colors, thinned with a vehicle like linseed or lilac oil in such a way that …
… LIGHT PASSES THROUGH THE TRANSLUCENT GLAZES (layers), and then IS REFLECTED BACK FROM THE WHITE, OPAQUE BASE, THROUGH THE GLAZE, TO THE EYE OF THE VIEWER.
It's like looking through stained glass!
And consider that painters like Titian and Parrish might have applied as many as sixteen glazes to any one painting, each glaze needing to dry (on the carrier, in the sun), then be varnished … that too needing to dry before the next glaze was applied.
Today, the equivalent of that process can be done in Photoshop in as littles as seconds or minutes, depending on the simplicity or complexity preferences of the digital artist.
I am no Maxfield Parrish nor Titian … but, because what artistic ability I may possess and modern technology, I can come up with images that may evoke similar viewer pleasures … my good fortune.
NOTE: Please forgive the long explanation; I thought it necessary in order to fully appreciate the work of Parrish and other artists. Since those who look at art virtually never see it as it is being created, while they metaphorically can stand at the artist's destination (his finished piece) … unless the viewer understands the artist's "journey" from conceived vision, through execution, likely unwanted side trips, hopefully leading to finished work, IMO, the viewer is denied a great deal about any given work of art.
My two cents.
For those who have taken the time to plow through the above, I hope you found it worthwhile.
I like the flower and buds the best and then a close second it is Alter-ego.
FYI:
Romantic art focused on emotions, feelings, and moods of all kinds including spirituality, imagination, mystery, and fervor. The subject matter varied widely including landscapes, religion, revolution, and peaceful beauty. The brushwork for romantic art became looser and less precise.
I can't decide between the 2 floral pics, they're both excellent.
I enjoyed the trees and stars, too.
Here's one of a similar nature.
Beautiful, spiritual, peaceful … perfect!