General Chat

Steve, The trouble with Photographs is You set the Scene,Click,and thats it,where as an Artist "Makes the Scene" using his skill and undoubted talent.That can never be captured on a Camera.It must be wonderful to be able to do that. **M**.

Tina-Marie - l have been to the Louvre - my hubby organised a surprise trip to Paris for our 30th wedding anniversay. l sat on a bench and burst into tears, the whole place the atmosphere the paintings was just wonderful. Have a lovely time:o))
Me granddad has'nt got any in there, but he has the Tate and loads of other galleries:o)))

jude sarf wales :o) x

I think both mediums have their place.

It depends on what they are meant to communicate and how they are displayed amongst other things.

Still remember (it wasn't that long ago) when I did my social policy course that one of the lecturers was a feminist (Rottweiler with PMT more like) I got into so many arguments with her about whether the likes of Ruebens were pornographers.

Nude painting, Nude photographs - both can be beautiful.

No offence intended but I think this is a bit like comparing classical music to rock music OR apples to oranges. Both good but in different ways.

Okay I'm off my high horse now. lol

T.O.R. ;o)))))))

Isnt it true that the Old Masters painted what they saw rather (with regards to the models) rather than what they thought people wanted to see?

Photography is a wonderful medium (my son is a photographer and has some wonderful shots) but with the best will in the world he couldnt reproduce an Old Master's classic picture.

not strictly about nudes but i read a description in a novel about a portrait painter....who captured the 'patient angel' in his studies...the 'soul' of the person looking out (the eyes being the 'windows of the soul' maybe?)? and sometimes the face he painted was not the face as it was then but the face it would become in the future....

I wonder if that is what makes the difference between paintings and photographs?

though I think maybe it can apply to both, depending on the skill and perception of the painter and photographer....

Rose xx

I much prefer nude paintings to photographs for the reasons Rose has given.

I particularly like Impressionist paintings as they are interpretive and tell a story rather than just representative.

Having said that I love naturalistic paintings which show women and men as they really look. I don't like digitally enhanced photos or paintings that portray a version of the body that doesn't exist in reality.

I know what I mean, anyway.

Gwynne

Tina, If you are going to Paris and you have time, do go to the Musee D'Orsay if you like Monet and the Impressionists. it is a wonderful art gallery.


I don't think you have to prefer either paintings or photographs, you can like both. Being two different mediums they both have their own attributes. I love the old masters' paintings of nudes because of the depth of colour and the 'warmth of the paintings. But some photographs can be stunning.
Unfortunately photography tends to get a bad press because of air brushing and computer enhancing

I would have said that it was easier for the old masters to paint models as they wanted to see them than it is for photographers.

I don't like air brushed photos, to me it is cheating.

Ann
glos

Merlin

lol i am not looking for models at the moment but thanks for asking for me lol

Also another thought for you is art created on a computer really Art ??

i love paintings, they capture the love of the artist and have depth, my brother does photograghy and uses his computer to add different colours to the scene.. nice but not the same...
xxxxx

that is a difficult one Steve.

In the truest sense I suppose not as to me the artistic flair comes from inside a person (I am going to have to ask my daughter in law this as she is doing an art and design course at college). If the art is being designed by a computer it is more mechanical in my opinion. However if the artist is controlling the computer and using it to draw his ideas then maybe it is art.

Ann
glos

I think modern photography especially black and white is great, but old masters paintings were brilliant.
Dx

COMPUTER ART,
I STILL HAVE TO TRY
AND WOULD LOVE TOO
WITH MY HAND CONTROLL GOING BIT BY BIT,,

YOU STIL NEED THE PICTURE IN THE HEAD
HEAD
I WOULD
STILL LOVE TO DO SOMETHING REALLY GOOD

Ann

I use a graphix tablet and pen and a program called corel painter X

that is just like having your own studio on a pc

Tho i still use paper and pencil as well, but gave up on canvas lol

Gwen

Art is in the eye of the beholder
if we all agreed thw world would be a dull place

that is what I mean steve, the way you are doing it as Gwen says the design/picture is in your head so it is still art.

Ann
Glos

I have paints, I have paper, I have tried!!! I would so love to be able to paint. But I do consider myself a pretty good photographer (painting with light), and 15 years ago was developing and printing my own black and white photos.

ann
Glos

ANN IF YOU WANT
I HAVE A TAB AN PEN YOU CAN TRY
CANT GET IT TO LOAD ON MY PC
NEVER USED

EASYPEN G6

YOU CAN BORROW IT

that is kind Gwen, how do you use it and what exactly does it do?

Ann
Glos

STEVE HELP EXPLAIN

I don't think computer created stuff has the soul of a painting or sketch I see that in the same way I do enhanced photos.

Attractive, creative and imaginative, probably but not as good as the real thing.

I can neither draw nor paint well but I can create stuff on the PC for posters and programmes for my theatre groups. But I don't think it's Art with a capital A.

Gwynne