Why do I recall paintings much more readily than photographs?

<p>It's me, Kevin O'Connell. I've been banned for abusive posting so I've created yet another fake name. <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> I can't believe you actually wrote that. You come into a photo forum to bash photography and photographers in general. I hope everyone that reads this looks at your photos and laughs. You better stick to graphic and fashion because you sure can't take a picture.<br /> Glad its easy for you, because if it was hard to take those pictures on your site, I feel sorry for you.</p>

<blockquote><em>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5926100">Jim Artist</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 09, 2010; 12:23 p.m.</p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /> </a>I can't believe you actually wrote that. You come into a photo forum to bash photography and photographers in general. I hope everyone that reads this looks at your photos and laughs. You better stick to graphic and fashion because <strong>you sure can't take a picture</strong>.<br />Glad its easy for you, because it was hard to take those pictures on your site, I feel sorry for you.</p>

 

</em></blockquote>

<p>Listen Jim, if I wanted a critique from you I'd ask for one.<br>

Why don't you actually post a photo or two instead of signing up ten minutes ago to take pot-shots at me? <br><b>Moderator: Because "Jim Painter" is really Kevin O'Connell and Jim Resner. In other words, a fraud.</b><br>

You feel sorry for me?<br>

Gee, that's swell.<br>

Do you have a clue as to how forums actually work?<br>

Does the term <strong><em>OFF-TOPIC</em></strong> ring a bell?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Well, Bill P. I feel sorry for you... or more realistically for your brushes. You sound like you're a terror with them. I'll bet if you sit quietly after hours you can hear your sables whining in the dark.<br>

Seriously though. Anyone that thinks painting is easier than photography should rethink. Vermeer's lifetime output was small, although he worked at it continuously. It routinely took him more than a year to complete an individual painting. And the cost of good sables - if they're available at all - is over $200 apiece for the brushes I prefer. Cobalt Violet at $75 a tube. Six months to prep and prime a linen canvas so that it is ready to paint on. The exposure to toxic fumes and chemicals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc.).<br>

And I have to say on Jim's behalf... if you have no argument to make, by all means make a personal attack. That way you will be very popular, and force the person you're attacking to bow to your superior argument.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 09, 2010; 05:02 p.m.</em><br /><em>Well, Bill P. I feel sorry for you... or more realistically for your brushes. You sound like you're a terror with them. I'll bet if you sit quietly after hours you can hear your sables whining in the dark.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, my brushes spent several years in therapy to deal with PTSD. Then they "retired" to a "home" for abused art supplies.<br />When I studied graphic design, I was introduced to the media you talk about and the complexity that can be involved. I remember sable brushes, but to own one was, for me, pointless. I'd leave that to artists like yourself who can actually paint.<br />I'm looking at "<em>The Art of Painting</em> " by Vermeer as I write this. That's the one in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, as you know. The detail in the chandelier alone is worth the price of admission. Paintings like that are not weekend projects, as you point out.<br />A big part of my training was to study works like this, and the payoff was monumental. Having been exposed tho this level of craftsmanship was the experience of a lifetime, even if we only got to see prints.<br />To re-address the original post, I recall art of all types with equal ease. That includes music also.<br />From ann earlier post, you mentioned that you had paintings of bottles on display in a gallery, and they caused quite a stir. <br />I wonder why people get such a visceral reaction to them.<br />Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill, there is a sexual subtext to the work, partly through hidden (subliminal if you will) imagery, and partly due to the scale and subject matter, since they are painted over lifesize and involve objects that appear to have "invaded" (penetrated) a space in which they do not belong. Few pick up the hidden information directly, but there's enough there to create a sense of unease, as if the message is signalling that it wants to come through, and not getting the message creates a discomfort.<br>

A painter can filter out and insert items at his/her discretion, depending upon their skill level. And alter the content and appearance of reality while still maintaining the semblance of reality. Not so easily done as a photographer.<br>

The link I posted further up is to a former teacher of mine. Also an admirer of Vermeer.</p>

<p><strong>Bill - "</strong> I do photography because it's easy."</p>

<p> That statement can be taken to mean many different things. Bill might consider it easier for <em>himself</em> , in his experience, which he mentions in the statement. This is primarily how it comes across to me, as a personal statement.</p>

<p>It can also mean that photography is easy in <em>general</em> , because all one has to do is point & press the button, though with all of Bill's education, this seems unlikely. In a way, it is true. I've been to parties back in the day, when as long as I was able to stay upright and twitch my index finger I was getting pictures, even though they mostly sucked.</p>

<p>For a fraction of the cost of a camera, canvas, sable brushes, tubes of paint, etc., I can buy a pencil and paper, and very quickly make finished drawings. Matisse did, though it took him a lifetime to get there. Most people can't, and won't, commit themselves to anything with that kind of kamikaze devotion.</p>

<p>But for most of us, ease and quality are separate channels. Nothing is easy to do well, let alone at a world-class level. Most people, specially photographers, are visual illiterates even though they, if under 40 yrs old, have lived out their entire lives enveloped by them. Like water to a goldfish.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tom, I'd love to see the works at some point. Messages not getting through in their entirety sounds like a dream state. Getting that to work on canvas in two dimensions is really saying something.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>A painter can filter out and insert items at his/her discretion, depending upon their skill level. And alter the content and appearance of reality while still maintaining the semblance of reality. Not so easily done as a photographer.<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So true, and frustrating at times as a photographer, especially working unretouched. The scenes have to be sought out or physically created in the studio.<br>

It would be easier to let the paint brushs get my tgoughts across, if only I could paint!</p>

<p>Don Wilson's work makes me a bit uncomfortable.<br>

Great work, to be sure, but haunting.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 10, 2010; 07:56 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em><strong>Bill - "</strong> I do photography because it's easy."</em><br>

<em>That statement can be taken to mean many different things. Bill might consider it easier for himself , in his experience, which he mentions in the statement. This is primarily how it comes across to me, as a personal statement.</em></p>

 

<p><em>It can also mean that photography is easy in general , because all one has to do is point & press the button, though with all of Bill's education, this seems unlikely.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, you're right, I assume averyone knows that I don't preface everything with those cute little "IMO"'s. Anything becomes easy if you spend your time and effort correctly at developing a skillset. Assuming you have the proper prerequisites for a given activity the rest becomes a matter of commitment.<br>

Put simply, work. Hard work. Lots of hard work applied correctly. <br>

For example, whatever it takes to be a painter, I don't have the prerequisites.<br>

For other skills, I do.<br>

Now it's a matter of putting in the work.<br>

Correctly.<br>

Then the skill becomes second nature.<br>

So yes, photography is easy for me. painting is not.<br>

Photography seems hard for many people.<br>

Since I don't know them or their processes, I can't comment. But as you state.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Most people can't, and won't, commit themselves to anything with that kind of kamikaze devotion.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sums it up for me.<br>

Sad but true, decent equipment and a stack of old "Modern Photography" magazines just won't cut it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <em>Most people, specially photographers, are visual illiterates.....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

So true Luis, so true.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bill P. wrote: Don Wilson's work makes me a bit uncomfortable.<br />Great work, to be sure, but haunting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The guy is pretty special. At least Robin Williams and Carrie Fisher thought enough so that they plunk down major chunks of change for his work. Haunting and message not coming through completely - that covers (he goes by "Roller") his work pretty well. I don't even know the full sub-text, and studied intensely with him. I have heard him described as the only living painter who can send a show to New York without having to go hawk it himself. He sends. It's a sensation. It all sells. Lather rinse repeat.<br>

I have tried to toy with some photo plus Photoshop techniques to deliver the same kind of results, but so far am miles and miles away from where I'd like it to be. Perhaps someday. My luck, I'll "perfect" the technique the very same day the world is plunged into darkness and no one will be able to make or view electronic work ever again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 10, 2010; 11:03 a.m.</em><br>

<em>I have tried to toy with some photo plus Photoshop techniques to deliver the same kind of results, but so far am miles and miles away from where I'd like it to be.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, I've gotten some pretty haunting shots poking around downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan. The light has to be just right, and numerous other factors have to line themselves up. it's extremely unpredictable, no way of knowing. I've posted one below, unretouched.<br>

There's a guy in Brooklyn who does similar work to Roller, far less serious though.<br>

He sells out immediately, too.<br>

Go figure.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p><div></div>

<p>Jerome Witkin (I think that he is Joel-Peter's brother) paints and draws in a similar vein, and is the source of the "only living artist" reference made about Roller. And I agree that with the light just right, lots of things happen.<br>

In class yesterday we were talking about the classic Hollywood shot of an ordinary scene, unawares subject with a large, ominous shadow looming from overhead. There are lots of ways to communicate complex messages visually. But on the whole, I don't think photography yet allows (or "straight" photography) for communication of really complex subtexts of the sort that I like to fiddle with.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 10, 2010; 12:05 p.m.</em><br>

<em>And I agree that with the light just right, lots of things happen....<br />....But on the whole, I don't think photography yet allows (or "straight" photography) for communication of really complex subtexts of the sort that I like to fiddle with.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, I agree, straight photography, without studio sets, props, etc., only accomodates what's in front of the lens. If you get the break, you get the shot.<br>

I've done some radical stuff in software (not p/s, but that's not important right now) and I agree that if you want to create "outside"(not "outsider") shots, then SFX rule the day. In that respect, you could make the case that painting is "easier". It's not, it just allows the talented craftsman to get the heart of the matter quicker. If you can dream it, you can paint it, so to speak. Trying to pull off the vision in software is another matter entirely, as you're discovering.<br>

I always refer to my manipulated work as "digital art", or something of that nature. I don't consider it photography at that point, but that's semantics.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em> </em></p>

 

<p>A little boy saluting his father's casket</strong><br>

A Vietnamese army officer shooting a man in the street</strong><br>

A lone Chinese student standing in front of a tank</strong><br>

The zepplin Hindenberg partially engulfed in flames</strong><br>

Soliders raising the flag on Iwo Jima</strong><br>

Muhammad Ali standing over a fallen Sonny Liston</strong><br>

<strong></strong>A sailor kissing a young nurse in the streets of NY</strong><br>

<strong></strong>A migrant women sitting with her children</strong><br>

<strong></strong>Close up of the face and eyes of an Afghan girl</strong><br>

<strong></strong>Two Olympic athletes raising their hands in the "Black Power" salute on the medal stand.</strong><br>

<strong></strong>The "Y" shaped cloud of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion</strong><br>

<strong></strong>Marylin Monroe with her dress blowing up.</strong><br>

<strong></strong>The Beatles walking the crosswalk at Abby Road</strong><br>

See if you have any problem picturing any of these images, just from the description. <br>

Sean</p>

<p>I usually respond to photographers insisting upon the "photography is just as good as..." argument about as warmly as I do to Malevich's Suprematist Movement. The argument is actually a little less interesting than Suprematism though.</p>

<p>A photograph is literally <em>attached</em> to its subject, an attachment and connection that no painting or drawing could ever render visually, photography is not " just as good as ", in its unique way it's <em>better</em>, but only if one lets photography stand alone - it's strong enough for that - instead of putting it up for comparison and imitation with other mediums like painting.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong> A photograph is literally <em>attached</em> to its subject..."</p>

<p> A photograph shows traces of captured photons that <em>echoed </em> from or went through whatever is depicted, and they, too, were detached from the subject, or they would not have reached film or sensor. Is it spiritually attached or entangled with the subject? Yes, but that's not what you said above.</p>

<p> It is a <em>referent </em> of the subject.</p>

 

<p>I'm talking about the photograph and the photographic image in relationship to its subject. The photograph of the pipe <em>is </em>more attached, quite literally, to <em>that</em> pipe as the subject, than the photo-realistic painting of that same pipe, or than a painting of <em>a</em> pipe<em>, </em>which isn't saying that the photograph = the pipe. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 10, 2010; 05:10 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I usually respond to photographers insisting upon the "photography is just as good as..." argument about as warmly as I do to Malevich's Suprematist Movement. The argument is actually a little less interesting than Suprematism though.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, paintings of squares? I'd love to say "Surely you jest", but those people were serious! Ay least "Modi" made the idea somewhat palatable..... <br>

Hey, how about my new resurrection, "White Cow in the Snow"?<br>

I know it's been done already, but I will pair it with "Black Bull at Night" so the comparativists will have something to crab about.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p>I just came to this thread and read quite a bit of it. The question is something that all of us have talked about with other photographers, artists, our grandmothers, etc....</p>

<p>Simple conclusion I've come up with is that from the time we're kids we're surrounded by photographs. T<em>here's you at 3 at 4... there's us... remember so and so.</em> .. and the way we look at them is by cascading through them, flipping through them like they're baseball cards, putting some aside and coming back to them later.</p>

<p>It's no different when I see other photographers going through other people's prints. They may talk about them more in depth, may point out certain things that photographers point out, but they don't stand across the room and rub their chins like they do with even a bad painting and say things like, "I have to live with this for a while..."</p>

<p>Goes back to our experience with the medium.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5092506"><em>Fi Rondo</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Feb 11, 2010; 12:21 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>....Simple conclusion I've come up with is that from the time we're kids we're surrounded by photographs.... </em></p>

 

<p><em>....Goes back to our experience with the medium.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting observation, Fi.<br>

I was surrounded by photos, art and music.<br>

I remember all media equally well.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<p>Bill P. I can think of no other "art movement" as annoying as the Suprematists. I just hope that photographers won't go waltzing down that road in attitude...<br>

And the immersion factor Fi mentions is likely right on there... since I was surrounded from early childhood by drawing media.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"><em>Tom Watt</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 11, 2010; 02:38 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill P. I can think of no other "art movement" as annoying as the Suprematists.</em></p>

 

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4458927"></a>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, I can think of other movements about as annoying, food poisoning comes immesdiately to mind, and luckily there are medications for that.<br>

But artistically, I'll agree with you about the "Suprematists".</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could it be because I've 'learned' that painting is a higher form of 'art' than photography and if I had been taught the opposite the opposite would be the case? Could it be that painters are more romanticized and written about and are considered as contributing more significantly to world culture and history</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's a combination of both, Alan.<br>

but more importantly, paintings are more "iconic" in the sense that they are simpler in an abstract way. Photographs tend to be more detailed since they are more realistic representative of what we see.</p>

<p>In short, it's easier for our minds to remember abstract, simple impressions (paintings) than to recall realistic details (photographs)</p>

<p>For me, I remember paintings and photographs equally if...<br>

If its something I love I remember it.<br>

If is something I hate I remember it<br>

If it gave me no impression ether way, I don't remember it or care.<br>

I'm very cut and dry, tell it like it is. Their is no scientific explanation or have anything to do with history.</p><p></p>