Hi Neil,
I take your point on the 'camera' thing, and I guess you are saying that there is a great difference in 'looking' as distinct from 'seeing'?
Do you think your students 'remember' how to 'see' once 'advised?' Or do they perhaps 'drift back' into normal 'glazed' over mode, a status which I believe is easier to adopt, in that there seems to be so much stimulus nowadays.
I believe that David Hockney is producing a completed canvas nigh-on every day, respect to that there man.
Ron
When I run my painting courses the first thing I teach is how to see. Then how to draw. The trouble is with photography, the camera ALWAYS lies. It distorts perspective and alters colours and light values.
David hockney was on Country File on the BBC last night showing his new paintings at an exhibition at the Royal Academy. Brilliant!! He now uses an iPad as a sketchbook on location.
I am stumped!
are these models?...just saw the Flickr Pages, they are models, right?
I think the question 'what is Art' rages on and on.
Thank you for sharing your pics and comments, Gretchen, and good luck to you.
If it looks good, do it, I say.
Very nice shots there, Neil,thanks for the link.
I was 'embarrassed' at the Gallery, as I had seen what I wanted to 'see', a testament to how un-observant one can be. I think that maybe the 'camera' can help us re-evaluate our surroundings.
The normal fleeting glance 'assumption of what's there' as seen by 'looking', is different compared with a Photograph which can be suspended in time, frozen, framed as it were.
I wonder then, as the camera never lies, if it is not the user who distorts 'reality', with that intellectual decision made to do so, and that makes the Photgrapher an Artist, Surely?
You are multi talented Gretchen.
I can't think that there is a place for 'art for arts' sake, what does that mean? amateur clubs? what does amateur mean? civic works?
Art, as such, has required sponsorship, patronage, agents, 'sales' since the beginning. What use you being a multi Billionaire, when you are dead, Van Gogh could have bought his own Studio/asylum/gallery! lol
Laters
No! All photography and art requires a suspension of belief and our eyes are being "conned' all the time. Did you know we are totally blind for about 4 hours a day? This happens as our eyes move around and each time they move the signal to the brain is temporarily switched off so we do not get seasick. Look in a mirror at your eyes then look at the left one then the right. Did you see your eyes move? Here are some model shots though which are really brilliant but the model cars are larger.
Go to Michael Paul smith’s site at - http://www.flickr.com/photos/24796741@N05
beautiful!
Wow, that's lovely Gretchen.
Truly mixed media. I suppose I meant Commercial as in 'selling out' for an Ad or something. I guess you can call your art 'art', or photography, as you're the author, I wouldn't disagree.
The photographer's partner is Yvonne, she is a designer/art director who does some wonderful, hand cut collages. There is a link on Eric's site if you find time.
Your sample also has that 'split' second is this a scene moment, where the brian, I guess, takes in all the info: icons, London, poor parking, before deciding no, it's a picture.....I love the zebra crossing BTW. Any more?
Ron
Hi Gretchen,
Eric is a commercial photographer, but I'm sure he would agree that, in this instance, he is an Artist. We all would agree, however, that Art, Photography, and Advertising's boundaries are becoming more and more blurred.
He did describe; to me, a dilema, that whist he has been 'approached' by commercial interest he wants to maintain the Artistic integrity. But I could see, studio books, photo-prints, post cards even, all of which he vends on his site.
As to Photoshop, he claims the only Photoshop work is the head and tail lights.
I wonder today, if the only differentiator between Art and Photography is the monetary issue, both elements hungry for this resource.
Can we see a sample of your work?
Ron
This is a 2 minute read, with pics....go there!