| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
What I find something of a conundrum is the current quest for more and more detail in photographs, beyond what is usually visible to the naked eye, or even reproducible on a screen.
When you look at these statues they are crude by comparison with todays technology...A 3D printer could make much more accurate representations of the subjects.
Yet they embrace the reality of the day, the mood and presence the subjects portrayed.
Art is far beyond minute detail of multi million pixels (or 3D blobs), it can be amazingly crude, yet so realistic, conveying the intentions of the artist at the same time.
To me that is the gift of the artist, to convey the message, the medium doesn't matter too much, nor does the absolute detail.
Capturing the moment in light.
Cartoonists are an example of simplistic capture of a sitters character, from a brief encounter a good cartoonist can capture the essence of the sitter. To me that is art, to be able to portray simply, by whatever medium.
Part of the beauty of sculpture is the ability of ambient light to enhance the 3d shape. In 2d artwork like photos, all we can rely on is capturing a representation of that moment. I suspect that's where sharpness comes in....we are trying to elevate the 3d experience as much as we can.
I would also state the obvious and say it's the shape, line, angle, position, arrangement, expression, lighting etc etc ...that makes a snap into a photograph. Without that extra component it's just a record shot.
Nothing wrong with that....but if you are wanting to create a photographic work of art, there needs to be something more, for which sharpness alone won't compensate.
That's what makes photography so hard....for me at least.
The skilled cartoonist sees that one characteristic that epitomises the sitter, moment, whatever. We need to do the same with photographs ...and if successful, the pixels won't matter tha5 much.
____________________
Eric