civilized ku # 3024 / painting vs photography ~ abstraction vs realism

porch railing leaves ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggen
painting vs photography # 1 ~ • click to embiggen
painting vs photography # 2 ~ • click to embiggen
painting vs photography # 3 ~ • click to embiggen
painting vs photography # 4 ~ • click to embiggen

First things first ... a disclaimer of sorts. In the past I have made it known that comparing the art of painting to the art of photography is somewhat of a fools errand. While they may have a limited number of shared characteristics, they are at the root level very different forms of image creation, both in the manner of their making and, iMo, how they are viewed / perceived. And, it is regarding the viewed / perceived characteristics that I have been pondering.

Weekend last, I was in an artists cooperative gallery which displays photography, painting, and a limited number of handmade objects (jewelry , sculpture, and the like). For the most part the work on display is of reasonably decent quality. While there, a couple paintings caught my eye and sensibilities and that set me to thinking about how, when viewing a painting vs viewing a photograph, I have rather different expectations.

Foremost amongst those different expectations is quite simple and should be obvious to most. Re: paintings, I expect to see a somewhat "abstract" impression (subject) of whatever referent the artist has chosen to paint. Re: photographs, I expect to see realistic representations (objective) of the referent the picture maker has chosen to picture*.

To wit, subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.

an aside: Even though the medium of photography is defined by its capability to make objective pictures, that does not mean that a picture made with the medium and its apparatus is not made with emotional and interpretive intent nor does it mean that the picture maker has not employed personal opinion and judgement. end of aside

All of that written, what has lingered in my head is the notion that most people who are interested in viewing and/or acquiring visual art lean heavily to the medium painting rather than that of photography. iMo, the reason for that is simple .... most people (critics and curators excluded) want art that provides them with an escape from reality. A mental and emotional safe haven / oasis that allows them to escape from the trials and tribulations (such as they might be) of every day life.

FYI, this observation is not meant to be a disparaging comment on those people or the art that they prefer. It is merely an observation. And it is that observation which instigated me to "convert" a few of my pictures to painting-like images.

When all is written and done, I have little doubt that most people, when confronted with those pictures side-by-side on a gallery wall, would chose the painting over the photograph. And that they perceive the painting to be more of an art object than the photograph.

*I do not consider one form of art or the other to be inferior / superior. I judge work (painting / photography) on entirely different criteria with each given the respect and consideration it deserves.

Any thoughts on the matter?

Comments

[Julian]

A very interesting post! I'm not convinced that we should use different criteria when looking at paintings or photographs, though. I don't think there is any important difference between the techniques that should influence our judgement of the pictures, unless the artist specifically declares the importance of their technique.

Thanks for the pictures and thoughts!