Painting v. Photography
Because I visit a lot (and I really do mean a LOT) of art exhibitions in my spare time, I often end up chatting to artists about photography. Most of them (usually painters) look down on photographers, and nude photographers in particular, not merely because they think nude photography is all about nekkid-chick-worship but also because they think snapping a nude photo is easy-peasy. To them, photography is not “art.” It’s a short-cut, a cheat, and the resulting image doesn’t “come alive” in the same way that a painting does. To them, any photographic skill involved is only about selection and manipulation, whereas painting is the art of creation from nothing to a totality.
Hmm…well let’s look at this argument a little closer shall we?
I will admit that photography is a short-cut of sorts, when compared to a painting. It’s faster, for one thing, and when a photographer shoots a nude model, the transition from three dimensional form to a two dimensional surface has already been made for him. Unlike painting, a photographic artist does not have to wrestle with the twin beasts of perspective and foreshortening because he has a mechanical device which does it for him. However that mechanical method has limits. Without skill in the craft of photography, the resulting image will end up as nothing more than a dull surface of homogenised coloured dots: empty and banal.
The painters I was talking to did not understand the concept of photographic skill.
“It’s not just a case of “click the shutter and you’re done,” I told them. “Creating an outstanding photographic piece demands thought, calculation, experience, control and above all, instinct.”
“Maybe,” conceded the painters, “but photographs still lack the emotional depth and artistic personality that a painting gives you.”
So how does the photographer regain that three dimensional depth, that artistic intensity, excitement and LIFE that comes from painting a live subject? How can he create an image which reflects his own artistic vision, which reflects what he was feeling and visualising at the time he captured the image? How can he reflect his personality, passion and subjectivity in an image in the same way as a painter does?
The answer must lie with the skilled photographer’s composition and manipulation of light. To give a photograph similar levels of emotional intensity as a painting, the image creator has to view himself not as someone who is capturing a moment in time, not merely recording what is already there. No, the photographic artist SEES (and my “sees” I mean “understands and perceives”) much more than that. He has to go beyond using the camera as a mechanical tool. He has to learn to paint in light.
Anyone can learn to use a camera. Quite honestly, it’s not that hard to learn form and composition either. Indeed it’s perfectly possible to become a pretty competent photographer after studying and practising taking photographs for a few years. However learning how to use a camera is merely the means by which a photograph is constructed; whereas (like an artist) the skilled photographer uses the light information that the brain receives from the eye and turns it into something much more.
Light is the first thing we see when we open our eyes. It is our primary means of establishing a relationship with the world. In the same way that an artist has to learn how light works before he can paint a picture, the photographer has to learn how light can be used to manipulate how his subject appears, in order to realise the vision in his head.
IMO, photography and art share more similarities than my snobby painters would care to admit. Both are art, even though the tools may be different. Although one type of artist uses a paintbrush and the other uses a mechanical device, the tools are secondary and to some extent irrelevant. It is the finished image which matters first and foremost, and the emotion reflected therein. The camera is merely a tool which is at the service of a photographer’s sight. The pinnacle in technique for both painter and photographer is when that tool becomes secondary to the sight. The tool is thus merely a means to an end. Like a painter, the skilled photographer is unaware of the camera because he is so absorbed in visualising and creating the end image. So when his hands move unconsciously to take the picture, it means his eyes, his brain and his mind are free.
Is the resulting image “true art?” Well, yes, IMO it can be. A photograph doesn’t have to be merely a recording of something which is already there. However, it does have to accurately reflect the artist’s creative vision. It has to be a truthful kind of beauty.
The very highest point attainable in photographic art is when the unaided photographer, occupying the same ambience as the subject he is studying, has the skill to push beyond the mechanical language of the camera and use the additional tools at his disposal (light, space, composition, form) to portray a final image which has meaning to both artist and viewer. Only then will the photograph move from two dimensional to something more, because he has made the image come truly alive inside the viewer’s mind.
And it is at that point where photography stops and art begins.
Photographs are of Iveta
Hmm…well let’s look at this argument a little closer shall we?
I will admit that photography is a short-cut of sorts, when compared to a painting. It’s faster, for one thing, and when a photographer shoots a nude model, the transition from three dimensional form to a two dimensional surface has already been made for him. Unlike painting, a photographic artist does not have to wrestle with the twin beasts of perspective and foreshortening because he has a mechanical device which does it for him. However that mechanical method has limits. Without skill in the craft of photography, the resulting image will end up as nothing more than a dull surface of homogenised coloured dots: empty and banal.
The painters I was talking to did not understand the concept of photographic skill.
“It’s not just a case of “click the shutter and you’re done,” I told them. “Creating an outstanding photographic piece demands thought, calculation, experience, control and above all, instinct.”
“Maybe,” conceded the painters, “but photographs still lack the emotional depth and artistic personality that a painting gives you.”
So how does the photographer regain that three dimensional depth, that artistic intensity, excitement and LIFE that comes from painting a live subject? How can he create an image which reflects his own artistic vision, which reflects what he was feeling and visualising at the time he captured the image? How can he reflect his personality, passion and subjectivity in an image in the same way as a painter does?
The answer must lie with the skilled photographer’s composition and manipulation of light. To give a photograph similar levels of emotional intensity as a painting, the image creator has to view himself not as someone who is capturing a moment in time, not merely recording what is already there. No, the photographic artist SEES (and my “sees” I mean “understands and perceives”) much more than that. He has to go beyond using the camera as a mechanical tool. He has to learn to paint in light.
Anyone can learn to use a camera. Quite honestly, it’s not that hard to learn form and composition either. Indeed it’s perfectly possible to become a pretty competent photographer after studying and practising taking photographs for a few years. However learning how to use a camera is merely the means by which a photograph is constructed; whereas (like an artist) the skilled photographer uses the light information that the brain receives from the eye and turns it into something much more.
Light is the first thing we see when we open our eyes. It is our primary means of establishing a relationship with the world. In the same way that an artist has to learn how light works before he can paint a picture, the photographer has to learn how light can be used to manipulate how his subject appears, in order to realise the vision in his head.
IMO, photography and art share more similarities than my snobby painters would care to admit. Both are art, even though the tools may be different. Although one type of artist uses a paintbrush and the other uses a mechanical device, the tools are secondary and to some extent irrelevant. It is the finished image which matters first and foremost, and the emotion reflected therein. The camera is merely a tool which is at the service of a photographer’s sight. The pinnacle in technique for both painter and photographer is when that tool becomes secondary to the sight. The tool is thus merely a means to an end. Like a painter, the skilled photographer is unaware of the camera because he is so absorbed in visualising and creating the end image. So when his hands move unconsciously to take the picture, it means his eyes, his brain and his mind are free.
Is the resulting image “true art?” Well, yes, IMO it can be. A photograph doesn’t have to be merely a recording of something which is already there. However, it does have to accurately reflect the artist’s creative vision. It has to be a truthful kind of beauty.
The very highest point attainable in photographic art is when the unaided photographer, occupying the same ambience as the subject he is studying, has the skill to push beyond the mechanical language of the camera and use the additional tools at his disposal (light, space, composition, form) to portray a final image which has meaning to both artist and viewer. Only then will the photograph move from two dimensional to something more, because he has made the image come truly alive inside the viewer’s mind.
And it is at that point where photography stops and art begins.
Photographs are of Iveta
Labels: Iveta, Philosophy
posted by Lin at 10:49 AM
8 Comments:
Well said Lin, the camera becomes an extension of the mind of the photographer. Then it the collaboration between he and his model who for the moment forget about camera, light and all the other manipulation do in a moment and capture the models mood and movement. All the technical seems to come to me unknown, I don't think of it really I'm too busy working with the model. The work just seems to flow.
Yes, Lin, I think you have summed it up pretty well.
But, I must say, that top photo is magnificient! I think it may be the best studio nude I've seen posted on your blog. Wonderful work with the light and the model has done a perfect job of posing. Bravo!
What a beautiful post. I especially like the part where you talk about light. For me, photography has to be about light. It's the only art that can capture and, as you say, paint with light instead of pigments, clay, stone, whatever. It thrills me when a photographer does something unique and exciting with light, or when I see the work of someone who is a master of lighting.
By the end of your post, I was feeling annoyed. I hate these snitty judgements about which art is higher, as you know. When I chose to specialize my doctorate in modern drama instead of "higher" literary arts, such as poetry or critical theory, I realized what I was doing. But frankly, my dear, I did not give a damn.
You might even say it is harder to achieve an artful piece with photography than painting. We will leave out the introduction of extreme photoshopping and say we are using the brush and a camera.
A painter can create what ever light values, over a larger range than a camera or from whatever direction needed. Need the sun coming up between two trees as you look out over the lake. Painter, no problem. Photographer, screwed because the great view both are trying to create is from the prospective of facing north. The painter can change the pose or dress or facial features as the picture develops. If the model shows up in pants instead of the skirt as required the photographer cannot change a pair of pants into a skirt. The painter, no problem. To me the painter has an easier time to create his vision because of the ability to adapt as he paints. The photographer must use what he is given for light and subject matter and once the shutter is pressed the creating stops.
Oh just had another thought. Those painters that look down on photography as art. I wonder how many use a photo as a reference for their paintings emotional depth and artistic personality.
D.L. Wood - Caveat Lector
Thanks for the kind comments folks! Thanks especially to Dave. Rich is mightily chuffed (pleased) you liked the photograph.
Oh just had another thought. Those painters that look down on photography as art. I wonder how many use a photo as a reference for their paintings emotional depth and artistic personality.
Aha! Now that was my argument too, but my painters don't count that as "true art" either. Apparently you can only get the three dimensional depth and "emotional texture" from life drawing and painting, not from photographs, because the photographic process apparently removes the soul of the piece. (Hey, don't blame me - I did say there were snobby British painters! They did paint nice nudes though...)
Great post, Lin! Interesting discussion as always.
Although he didn't do art nudes, I'm reminded of the famous quote from Ansel Adams, "You don't take a photograph, you make it".
Thanks Claudia! I'd forgotten that quote, but yes, Ansel was spot on (as always.)
“but photographs still lack the emotional depth and artistic personality that a painting gives you.”
I call bullshit on that statement. In fact, I contend photographs, quite often, offer more emotional depth than many or most paintings!
BTW, first pic, the girl standing, is stunning!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home