4 ms·

This gives the camera a little too much credit. A painting is really a three-dimensional object (texture, etc, can be critical). So a two-dimensional projecti

This gives the camera a little too much credit. A painting is really a three-dimensional object (texture, etc, can be critical). So a two-dimensional projection of that will by definition lose information.

the_jeremy 6y ago
Oh, but this is giving a painting too much credit. A sculpture, of course, is truly three-dimensional - a painting can hardly be called three-dimensional in comparison. And this gives the sculptor too much credit, since it's just a creation of a stationary, dead object. True art comes from real movement of bodies on the stage. But this isn't true art either, for it's ephemeral. Clearly, a movie would have the most encoded information, and is thus the most credible art. But this is laziness, for anyone can hit record, it must be the person who photographs, who chooses the exact moment to capture, rather than the person who says "capture everything" that can truly get at the essence of art. /s
gdubs 6y ago
It's definitely more subtle than that, for sure. Rembrandt is a great example. He created life-like illusions through a mastery of the medium – the way light reflects and refracts through different pigments, the role of varnishing, the thickness of paint, etc. Standing in front of one is an entirely different experience than looking at a photo reproduction. Doesn't compare. But broadly speaking, photography emerged at a time where the aim of most painters was still to create a window into a world. It's no accident that Impressionism emerged at the same time as the avant guard reaction to that. Which then led to abstract expressionism, etc – the idea that a painting is an object in and of itself. That the surface of the painting (the texture, the geometry of the composition) is what's interesting; rather than it being a vehicle for depicting some image.

4 ms·

This gives the camera a little too much credit. A painting is really a three-dimensional object (texture, etc, can be critical). So a two-dimensional projecti

by apocalypstyx 6y ago

the_jeremy 6y ago
Oh, but this is giving a painting too much credit. A sculpture, of course, is truly three-dimensional - a painting can hardly be called three-dimensional in comparison. And this gives the sculptor too much credit, since it's just a creation of a stationary, dead object. True art comes from real movement of bodies on the stage. But this isn't true art either, for it's ephemeral. Clearly, a movie would have the most encoded information, and is thus the most credible art. But this is laziness, for anyone can hit record, it must be the person who photographs, who chooses the exact moment to capture, rather than the person who says "capture everything" that can truly get at the essence of art. /s
gdubs 6y ago
It's definitely more subtle than that, for sure. Rembrandt is a great example. He created life-like illusions through a mastery of the medium – the way light reflects and refracts through different pigments, the role of varnishing, the thickness of paint, etc. Standing in front of one is an entirely different experience than looking at a photo reproduction. Doesn't compare. But broadly speaking, photography emerged at a time where the aim of most painters was still to create a window into a world. It's no accident that Impressionism emerged at the same time as the avant guard reaction to that. Which then led to abstract expressionism, etc – the idea that a painting is an object in and of itself. That the surface of the painting (the texture, the geometry of the composition) is what's interesting; rather than it being a vehicle for depicting some image.