2 ms·
Famously, cubism as an art form arose in part as a response to photography, as well as what seemed like the creative dead-end involved with traditional lifelike
by zuminator 5y ago
Famously, cubism as an art form arose in part as a response to photography, as well as what seemed like the creative dead-end involved with traditional lifelike representational art. The cubists thought "realistic" painting and conventional photography can both be thought of as deceptions. After all, the world is comprised of three dimensional objects that subtend through time, yet the canvas or the photographic image are 2D representations of a fixed moment in time that trick our eyes into interpreting the forms within as 3D. Picasso, Braque and others thought, let's embrace the fact that we are working on a 2D medium yet find a way to honestly convey the dimensionality of the world. Thus cubist works often depict subjects from various angles, such as the front and side of the face of Dora Maar in Picasso's well-known work [0]. Ironically in the 1980's painter David Hockney took the method full circle with his "joiner" photomontage style of photography[1].
I'm also reminded of how often when beautifully rich deep space photos are posted, particularly if a bright colorful image is shown [2], a common response is, "that's not a 'real' image, it's digitally processed 'false color,' right?" But all color is false color in a sense. It's a combination of the property of the object we're looking at, the processing limitations of our eyes, and our brain's subjective experience of color as a "qualia."[3] A set of choices made by our biology, you might say. The algorithms in digital cameras are designed to create images that roughly correspond to those biological choices, but that doesn't make them any more real than "false color" photos. In years past, conventional film emulsions attempted the same, and failed. In the 1950's and 1960's the newly emergent popular color emulsions were designed to make human skin look attractive in the developed snapshot. But of course not all human skin is the same color, so needless to say, mistakes were made. [4]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Dora_Maar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Dora_Maar
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pNsfZYQeE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pNsfZYQeE0
[2] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic0515a.jpg https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic05...
[3] https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/angus-menuge-explains-why-red-is-such-a-problem-in-philosophy/ https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/angus-menuge-explains-why-red...
[4] https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/ https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/
- deanCommie 5y agoI spent YEARS being sad and disappointed that the deep space photos colours were "fake", like a child that just found out there is no santa. Until someone pointed out to me exactly what you said. Light is just a specific range on a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. So are Gamma rays, X-rays, Ultraviolet, and Infrared. It just so happens that our biological eyes interpret one very (frankly narrow) range of those wavelengths as colour. But on an inter-gallactic scale, why should the biological quirk of one random primate on a random single planet matter when it comes to representing the full grandure of a celestial object that is light years in size. The data is real - it's data we received about this image. It arrived to our telescopes, and we stored it. And now we're trying to present the awesome range of everything we captured to our silly little primate eyes.