3 ms·
> If the result seems “better than real”, perhaps it’s because that’s what the scene felt like at the moment I don’t object to impressionistic photography as a
by FakeComments 8y ago
> If the result seems “better than real”, perhaps it’s because that’s what the scene felt like at the moment
I don’t object to impressionistic photography as an art form — but it’s not converting anything real, in the same way an impressionist painting of a tree doesn’t. It’s a fake scene by which the artist can convey the impression of emotions.
It’s not about aesthetics — a “fake” photo can be of exceeding aesthetic value — but rather, about if it conveys something accurate about the world. It’s also not about if it conveys content we otherwise might not have known, there’s whole fields of study on that topic.
Impressionist photos can quite reasonably be called “fake”, even those with merely surreal colors on literal geometric structure — because they fail to convey the world as it is, and are merely an artistic creation.
- goblin89 8y agoSuch a picture might convey something accurate about someone’s perception, which may or may not be seen as valuable and may or may not be close to some sort of consensus. A map is not the territory[0]; the map is not even of the world but merely of perception of it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation#"A_map_is_not_the_territory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation#"A_map_... Addendum: no, I would never call a non-documentary work of any kind ‘fake’, the word conveys nothing of substance yet has the potential to discourage further creative work, which I would like to avoid. Depending on what it is, I might say ‘surreal’, for example. To each their own.