Well, I like it anyway. I have tried to say the same before but I am not a philosopher by profession, so no one will be quoting me any time soon.
My wife could never understand why I would be unhappy with the results of a painting that to her and others looks exactly like the reference photo. They said, "Wow it looks great, just like the photo." (I have many times worked from photos out of necessity or because the subject was not able or would not sit.)
I, of course, was striving to capture more than just a photographic image in paint. So I would be distraught over what to me was a failed painting, and their assertions that it was just like a photo only served to confirm my feelings - that although I had the proportions and tones correct, something was missing. That something that makes a painting almost come to life.
The artists I admire most have that intangible thing in their work that transcends just an accurate reproduction of form. And this includes artists from very loose, painterly expressions to very tight, realistic painters. Just what it is that makes the difference, I am not sure.
For me a very accurate painting can be lifeless and one that although not perfect in accuracy is alive with the spirit of the sitter and the artist. I am not sure what it is or how one painting can have it and another not - or even where it comes from.
I don't think about it myself, and when I talk to other artists who have captured it, they say they just try and capture what they see. I guess that is what it is; it is the very fact that it is indefinable that makes it impossible for a mechanical reproduction to capture. It must be filtered through the human mind and the hand of the artist before reaching the painting surface.
I think I will return to my work now. All this philosophy is giving me a headache.
Linear Mode
