This seems a little gaudy quoting myself,
Quote:
A photo can show light, shadow, or objects in ways which, for a photo, are routinely believable. We tend to accept a photo (generally speaking) as an accurate recording of the scene. We place the burden on ourselves to figure it out because we first believe that the photo recorded it correctly.
Then we get to our painting ... I believe there is a completly different mental dynamic that we employ when we view a painting. A painting, by definition, is a contrivance. The artist chose to include or to exclude. The burden is switched from the viewer and placed onto the artist. Instead of the viewer "figuring it out" we now have the artist "explaining it." When we attempt a painting of this type we really have to be "dead on" with these effects. A much greater burden, a much greater reward if we get it right.
|
Sharon's quote in this thread brought to mind the above similar discussion.
Quote:
|
It is an odd phenomenon that somehow things that read in a photo don't always translate to a painting.
|
Best of luck, Jennifer.