Photography vs Other forms of Art...

T

TheWolf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
66
Edit My Images
No
...such as painting! Which do you prefer and why?

Although you get more freedom with painting, I often find photography more beautiful in that it is very much real...yes just real ;)
 
Speaking as someone that spent a couple of years daubing watercolours very amateurishly onto paper, I have to go with photography. The instant result and yet the ability to create an alternative with the original is far more satisfying imo.
 
It does depend on your use of the word 'art', good photography encompasses many different attitudes and subjects, only some of which can be called 'art'.
For me, photography offers more than painting as a medium to express myself. Somehow the photo is always taken as truth, restricted as it where by the reality you see, not by what you can imagine, this adds possibly false authenticity to what is essentially a composed and constructed image manipulated by you, your lens, your position, your framing etc. Its very real, its in the moment, the satisfaction comes from capturing the reality as you imagined it could look …. I find sculpture offers a similar encompassing satisfaction, as does music...
 
It's interesting that the father of modern photography, a certain Mr Fox Talbot couldn't draw for toffee, hence the reason he started researching the subject.

Me, I'm with Fox Talbot. I can't paint to save my life, but photography has been a in my life since I was young, and it's given me a career as well. You can see where my loyalties lie.

It's also interesting that I visited Devon this year and met a couple who ran holiday painting courses. They had no trouble with their students photographing a subject, bringing the digital image back and then painting from that image. Seems a long way round to me.
 
Chappers said:
It's also interesting that I visited Devon this year and met a couple who ran holiday painting courses. They had no trouble with their students photographing a subject, bringing the digital image back and then painting from that image. Seems a long way round to me.
Click to expand...

Not as daft as it initially sounds though. Painting from a real live landscape has several drawbacks - our wonderful British weather for a start, and constantly changing light. The purists may claim that its the way to go, but capturing that one moment of light you want then taking that back to the studio is a much easier way to learn - the camera then becomes an extra tool rather than the means to the end. I also found, that I can draw, not expertly, but sufficiently well to then paint onto [jeez, I just realised I made money from painting than I ever have from photography :bang: ], but drawing from an image that had already been made '2D' was considerably easier then trying to draw direct from '3D' - some would say its cheating, but I peferred to think of it as 'using the tools available to me' ;)
 
my mrs paints in oils, airbrush and watercolours.
earns a living as a tog. she loves painting, but to do it commercialy, you have to be realy lucky and get your work shown.
she has some beautifull work which i love to look at.but its so time consuming , and photography is comparatively quick to produce images.theres a lot of skill in both to do it well. a lot of the artist "eye" also comes into photography too.
photography is a form of artwork accesable to far more people
 
I paint and also kind of take photo's.I am a better artist than photographer. I find that painting for me is something that I have more feeling and expression for. You can also paint from your "minds eye" and create/express something that doesn't exist except inside yourself - something you cannot do with a camera. Photography does give instant gratification though and you can go back to the same image time and again and do something different each time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top