|
Hi
I find this debate very interesting, and certainly it is a compliment to the level of accuity that professionals reach, and is a priviledge for us (not there yet) to learn from. Please allow me to ask a question of you -
It seems to me in reading this that I am leaning more towards what Tim believes. I say this for two reasons:
1.) What we see doesn't really exist, as far as it is our brain interpreting information. For example, thank goodness for persistence of vision, or else we would "see" nothing but millions of separate frames of information. Marcel Duchamps' "Nude Decending Staircase", judged from this perspective, is more "real" than, say any Ingres. So as painters we are toying with visual sensory nerves, and should be possible to achieve our "trickery" in both value in tone - look at Chuck Close as a raw example in my opinion.
2.) I find that there is a level of cerebral "scientific expertise" that one may actually want to avoid, as the closer you may achieve it, it is to the sacrifice of other dynamics that are involved in portraiture. To me Sargent is exceptional, because he is human, and the fact that his works shows both mastery and fallibility is the common denominator of both him AND of his subjects. No one is perfect, and no one should be.
On the other hand, I it find ironic that Tim uses as an example a still life, and not a human being.
What I'd like to ask is, in the context of value/color, how does one capture a subject's spirit?
Thanks for your consideration of this idea.
Linda
|