Why do photographers imitate painter's art styles?

Its a joke Supriyo. Let me put it this way, I don't think photographers should take themselves too seriously.

Its a joke Supriyo.

 

I understood that, and same here.

 

After reading various comments on PN, I think most folks here take things quite seriously though.

I know.

for the composition, the color, details, plus it worked for them why not work for you

At the risk of duplicating a previous response to the OP, why not? Besides, Rashad, why do you think that photographers actually do imitate painters? Can you provide at least one example?

????. Just compare all the mediums. Novels, movies, plays, movies etc. My pet peeve is when people compare a book to a movie and then criticize the movie for not being faithful to the book. A director would be pretty shitty if that was his intention. A book can spend pages analyzing what in occurring in a person's mind while the movie presents a detailed image. A play is a surrealistic 3 walled room. A painting allows the artist to create any image he wants. Many times a movie is a complete contradiction of the book. It is the director's own artistic creation. I just do not take seriously the idea of translating from one medium to the other . Why would a photographer think of imitating a painting or a theater production think they are recreating a movie. Better yet, why not have a painter make a digital image of his work and photoshop it and forget about texture pigment properties and brush strokes?

My pet peeve is when people compare a book to a movie and then criticize the movie for not being faithful to the book. A director would be pretty shitty if that was his intention.

Making a movie that's faithful to the book is not trying to imitate another medium. It's using a different medium in its own way to deliver a similar narrative. What a movie director does is not pretend he's filming a book. He translates from one medium to another, often taking liberty along the way.

 

The Godfather is a great example of an awesome movie director making a movie that's as good as and also faithful to the original book. The movie does not try to do all the things the book does. It can't and no director thinks it can. The movie captures the essence of the book in film.

 

Jaws, IMO, is a better movie than it was a book.

 

Many great directors intend their movies to be faithful to the books on which they're based. Some take a lot more leeway and just use the book as a jumping off point and for the basic idea of plot, if even that.

It is the director's own artistic creation.

Actually, it often is not. Many director's see themselves as collaborating with the writer of the original book. Many times, the original writer will be hired to write the screenplay and will play an important role on the set of the movie. Directors work with these authors very closely quite often. Directors, more than many other more singular artists, know they can't go it alone. They most often require huge production crews, writers, lighting people, actors, and routinely rely on already existing source material. It's usually NOT the director's own artistic creation.

Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. Actually not all ( sorry for not mention clearly at the begaining ) but some photographers trend to make photos like painters. It is their own choice or liking. I was following that last few years. Some are making portraits with same looking wardrobe & lighting style as the painter's did. Some are making landscape with over saturated colors + heavy HDR in post processing just to give look of a painting. Anyone can check that in the web. One can get insparetion or composition ideas from painters work, no problem with that. But to give a painterly look like brush stroke & other techniques looses the essence of a photograph, I think.

 

I presume in near future, camera software will be able to give us master painter's signature look once you click the shutter button. No need to do it in post processing.

Our own P/N offers a "Purchase a Print" option through a service called Canvas Pop. I've always considered prints on canvas to be an insult to both worlds. Canvas Pop also offers conventional prints on paper. BTW, has anyone tried them yet?

Our own P/N offers a "Purchase a Print" option through a service called Canvas Pop. I've always considered prints on canvas to be an insult to both worlds. Canvas Pop also offers conventional prints on paper. BTW, has anyone tried them yet?

I’ve made a few canvas prints with photos that seemed to lend themselves to that. I plan to have a few select canvas prints in my next photo exhibit. I have several painter friends and none of them felt insulted when they saw these prints. I’ve seen gallery shows where canvas prints were used. Some were done tastefully. Others came across as gimmicky. Case by case basis and context and choice of image makes all the difference. I’ve seen better work than what Canvas Pop produces, but it’s a reasonable alternative if cost is an issue.

 

A lot of painters photograph their work to display on the Internet. Not totally analogous to printing a photo on canvas, which is more of a finished product, I know, but if a photographer were to feel insulted that his precious medium had been abused by an interloper, I’d say the photographer had a wee bit too much time on his hands.

...I've always considered prints on canvas to be an insult to both worlds....

 

I feel the opposite way. Although I've never had photos of mine printed on canvas, I feel that there are many photos that would look good on canvas. I think they would be a credit to both photography and painting.

 

Hmm... I wonder how I'd

look on canvas...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Making a movie that's faithful to the book is not trying to imitate another medium. It's using a different medium in its own way to deliver a similar narrative.

 

While I agree with this analysis, Fred, I'm not sure that it applies to photography in all instances. Not all photos involve narratives or stories (in the sense that movies do).

While I agree with this analysis, Fred, I'm not sure that it applies to photography in all instances. Not all photos involve narratives or stories (in the sense that movies do).

Michael, this is almost a perfect response with which to make the point.

 

First off, I wasn’t applying the book/movie post directly to photography. Movies and the books they’re based on had been brought up by someone else so I was commenting on that relationship specifically.

 

But, in the broader sense, there’s a lesson here. When “translating” from one medium to another, one is not necessarily looking for a verbatim or word-for-word translation but rather for a gestalt type of re-interpretation! One doesn’t write a book when making a movie but one, with imagination and skill, can ADAPT themes and other qualities of a work.

 

As you note, the relationship of book to movie is different from that of painting to photo. But, I think you might be able to take this idea of non-verbatim translation, or adaptation, and “translate” that to the painting/photo world. Despite the fact that the book/movie world is generally more narrative than the the painting/photo world, the principles of finding essential as opposed to verbatim elements to adapt or reinterpret is the real point, as opposed to the specific difference between a narrative and less narrative art form.

 

Translating from one medium to another requires an ability to grasp the emotional, visual, metaphorical, and imaginative qualities in addition to whatever literal or narrative content there may be.

 

Also, I didn’t take the OP’s question to be limited to direct translation from a painting to a photo, like taking The Starry Night and making a photo of it. He seemed to be including more generically making some photos that look like paintings in general rather than looking like a specific painting.

 

The Godfather is a great example of an awesome movie director making a movie that's as good as and also faithful to the original book. The movie does not try to do all the things the book does. It can't and no director thinks it can. The movie captures the essence of the book in film.

 

Jaws, IMO, is a better movie than it was a book.

 

I agree, those are 2 fine examples but I consider them exceptions to the rule. In the Godfather however it is the events that are so accurately portrayed. What the movie still could not do was delve into the character's minds and experiences and what shaped them. It could not go into great depth of the culture of the mafia and its protocols etc going back to the idea of families their own in Sicily and who to trust. Only the book could portray this background. It is also an example where it is more like a collaborative effort `where you neede both to appreciate the whole story

What the movie still could not do was delve into the character's minds and experiences and what shaped them.

So, what this says it what should have been known all along: movies do things differently from books. Just because they do things differently doesn't mean they can't, in some instances, be judged on their fidelity to the original source.

 

Whether it makes a difference how much a movie strayed from a book will matter on a case by case basis. If A kills B in the book (regardless of chapters' worth of motivations given by the author) and a director has C kill B instead, a viewer has every right to complain about the director's choice and mention the unfaithfulness to the original in his critique, especially if he thinks A killing B made more sense and was at the core of the story or at least moved the story along better. On the other hand, some may see it as a wise choice and not make a big deal about it. If done rebelliously and carried through in a way that works, it could be a genius move on the part of the director. Many possibilities.

 

There are certain books, many perhaps, that have become part of the cultural vernacular. If a director takes a whole lot of liberty with the plot or themes or gestalt of such a book, it makes perfect sense that it would bother some people.

 

Duchamp painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa in part because he knew it would disturb people. He was making a rebellious statement about the public's affinity for certain traditional, historical works of art and ways of seeing art. His statement only worked because of the known affinity the general public has for beloved works of art. Though Duchamp's rebellious gesture made an important statement and, in some ways, changed how we think about art, people still maintain affinities for a lot of art that's gotten into the collective consciousness.

 

I give a movie director credit if he tries to flout that affinity and comes up with an adaptation that rebels against the original while presenting something that has its own worth. But, we're generally not speaking of that when we talk about faithless adaptations. We're generally just talking about failures, because a director simply couldn't capture the essence of what the original presented.

Despite the fact that the book/movie world is generally more narrative than the the painting/photo world, the principles of finding essential as opposed to verbatim elements to adapt or reinterpret is the real point, as opposed to the specific difference between a narrative and less narrative art form.

 

This clarifies the matter, Fred. Thanks.

I have to apologize. You and others on this thread are quite well equipped to address this with some expertise and critical ability. OI was referring to the large segment of the public who have unrealistic expectations. Probably this thread was not the proper forum for me to bring up this point. I just personally find it hard compare to different media general.

 

Just musing, too bad de Bakker is not around to weigh in on this. Now that would make for some interesting exchangges

why can't people just do whatever they want ? ..

why can't people just do whatever they want ? ..

 

Hmm... cuz most of them

would wind up in prison...???

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Hmm... cuz most of them

would wind up in prison...???

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

 

i meant style-wise / photographically speaking ..

i wasn't speaking outside the "scope of this thread"

but you do have a point i suppose...

but you do have a point i suppose...

I'd say that ape has his tongue so firmly planted in his cheek that it's rare that you want to take her one-liners too seriously!

why can't people just do whatever they want ? ..

They can. But they can also ask questions and it's good to get a discussion going. People seem to have genuine desires to know what others think. Now, the OP may have been a little misleading by using the term "should." But it ought to be easy to get past that and figure the OP was not thinking about some imposed rule that demands photographers imitate painters, but rather was just wanting to talk about reasons for making a photograph look like a painting and opinions and personal experiences about doing so or not doing so.

I think that it's because people get a little bored with digital and start playing with things out of that boredom. It's so easy to do crazy stuff in PS, while it doesn't work that way in a darkroom. Us film shooters don't do all that, we're like Jack Webb......just the facts, mam, just the facts.

it doesn't work that way in a darkroom. Us film shooters don't do all that

May I introduce Man Ray, Jerry Uelsmann, Lucas Samaras.

 

"Just the facts, mam, just the facts," indeed.

I'd say that ape has his tongue so firmly planted in his cheek that it's rare that you want to take her one-liners too seriously!

 

They can. But they can also ask questions and it's good to get a discussion going. People seem to have genuine desires to know what others think. Now, the OP may have been a little misleading by using the term "should." But it ought to be easy to get past that and figure the OP was not thinking about some imposed rule that demands photographers imitate painters, but rather was just wanting to talk about reasons for making a photograph look like a painting and opinions and personal experiences about doing so or not doing so.

 

This, plus your response to my earlier post, provides sufficient clarification for me. Thanks, Fred.