one of the questions that keeps coming up as a painter who like to use photographs as references and likes to paint identifiable images... is why paint it when you can or even have the photo? it is a good sturdy question and one that i think will continue to come up for me. i am still learning how to articulate my answers and thoughts. and i am still figuring out this question. it took down this quote from a documentary on the painter Alice Neel; it has given me something to think about. yes! i feel like it captures how i feel a bit:
"The business about the difference of painting and photography becomes crucial in a sense that the photograph does capture somebody in a manner which freezes that person in an instant; a painting never freezes in quite the same way, painting takes place over time. The mere fact that painting is not a second arrested but is a relationship of seeing, the seer and the subject means that painting contains duration. When you look at a painting, you are seeing an extended moment happen not just time stopped which gives the photograph a somewhat more morbid character and painting a less morbid one."
~Robert Storr, Dean, Yale School of Art
No comments:
Post a Comment