Why do I recall paintings much more readily than photographs?

<p>I can easily conjure up thoughts and images and feelings about Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' or 'Self-Portrait' or Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon' or Duchamp 'Nude Descending a Staircase,' -- all paintings. But when it comes to photographs, even by my favorite photographer (which is probably Irving Penn), I have to make a real effort to imagine one. Is this generally true about painting vs. photography? 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-- Do you have any ideas I haven't listed?</p>

<p>Alan: let's face it, Van Gogh is a big world of content and quality away from Penn, not to denigrate the Noble Irving. Yes painting is the higher art form, though no doubt there are thousands of photographers ready to hang me now! I approach the question without prejudice, having been a painter since 1954, and a photographer since '66.</p>

<p>Painters have 20,000 or so more years of inertia behind them and the recognition of their art as such. By comparison, photography was invented yesterday.<br /><br />Still, I find that both painters and photographers produce mountains of utterly forgettable stuff every day. I can summon up a collection of across-the-centuries classics that leap to mind when I think of paintings, but I'd have to really work hard to think of as many paintings made in the last 35 years that have impacted me as profoundly as many photographs I've encountered in that same period. It all depends what you go out looking for, and who you hang out with.</p>

<p> I tend to remember paintings and photographs equally well.</p>

<p><br></p><p> I tend to remember paintings and photographs equally well. <br></p>

<p>I'm still thinking about a pair of 50" square (or so) inkjets by a Cuban woman, seen yesterday in the Albuquerque Museum. B&W, nothing but corners of two mouths (one unshaven). I love Van Gogh, but I recall the smell of his paintings in a show many years ago, more readily than the images. Think Proust. Photographers rarely pretend the significance of individual images as much as do curators of paintings. Its' easy to remember several of Ansel Adams' photos (Moonrise, Half Dome), but I don't care as much for them as for his less famous snapshot of Georgia O'Keefe on motorcycle, or those big square Cuban inkjets. I made a woman's portrait, her paintings leap to mind, and simultaneously I almost wish she'd "liked" my colorful, harshly lit results.</p>

<p>I think as most of us grew up, we were much more exposed to paintings as an art form than photography. If you took any art history, 99% of it focused on famous paintings and sculptures with maybe a day of photography thrown in. You only really got immersed into photography, if you actually took photography classes, even then the forced memorization of photographs was much less a focal point. IMHO the art is the finished product and one form is not superior to the next. </p>

<p>To the “Do you have any ideas I haven't listed?” question, two immediately occur to me ...<br>

One I don't particularly believe, but it may well be true: that it's because painting has a twelve thousand year head start on photography :-)<br>

Another, which I do believe although with no evidence to back it up: that it's because different people have different types of memory. I remember photographs and paitings equally well and/or equally badly, but with music I can reply in my head in CD quality anything with a vocal component (whether Bach or Bee Gees) but have great difficult pulling up favourites which are purely instrumental.</p>

<p>If anything, I remember photos better than I remember paintings. It's probably because I analyze interesting photos more thoroughly than I analyze paintings.</p>

<p>I don't think that it's generally true that paintings are more-easily remembered than photos.</p>

<p>Possibly you (Alan G.) have different expectations of you memories of photographs. Because they are (supposed to be) "copies" of reality, you may expect to be able to find much more detail in a photograph and in memory of a photograph than you do in memory of a painting.</p>

<p>However, this is never true. Both in your memories of a painting of a tiger and your memories of a photograph of a tiger, you cannot count its stripes.</p>

<p>Do people still paint?<br>

Joking of course, I seem to remember a famous painting as well as a famous photo.</p>

<p>Just like "Kleenex" is a brand name and not a "tissue" we seem to remember icons better than items.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.chrysler.org/education/unit4/unit4_images/steichen_morgan_71_lg.jpg">Steichen's portrait of JP Morgan</a> , <a href="http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_16/461px-Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg">Dorthea Lang's photo of the appalachian woman</a> , <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/06/nyregion/06kiss.2_span.jpg">Alfred Eisenstaedt's Times square kiss photo</a> and many, many others, are burned into my brain as much as any painting. <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/06/nyregion/06kiss.2_span.jpg"><br /> </a></p>

<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?. (Alan)</p>

<p>Possibly, but you can also unlearn those paradigms. What we are taught is only an appreciation and we should be taught to come to our own conclusions after having been exposed to many diverse creations and knowledge. We used to learn that pure science was more noble an activity than applied science, that an artist is superior to a craftsperson, that federal politics is a higher art and activity than regional or municipal politics, that in painting oils are superior to acrylics or watercolours, that stone sculptures are superior to wood or bronze (cast) scuptures (or vice versa), that mechanical Swiss watches were (are) better than quartz watches, that French or Italian cuisine is superior to British or American cuisine, and so on, and so on.</p>

<p>With a little experience one often comes to the conclusion that such paradigms of thought or taste are just that. There are many photographs (Penn represents an extremely limited output of photography) that are better than many paintings, and there are many paintings that are better than many photographs. It all depends on the artist chosen and his or her best works. And individual taste.</p>

<p> </p>

When I read the header question before opening the thread, Starry Night flashed in my brain! Now I keep seeing Moonrise in Yosemite...there like songs that keep playing in my head. So, I seem to recall both equally. OK, so now I've got Miserlou by Dick Dale accompaning Moonrise!

<p>There are far fewer paintings for a given artist due to the time it takes to create a painting, as opposed to a photographer who can turn out far more pieces in a much shorter time. That is, by the way, why I went back to photography. It's easier.<br>

<em></em><br>

<em>Paintings are too hard. - Andy Warhol</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Bill P.</p>

<p>Much to consider. Hmmmm....well...all these reflections sound legitimiate. I do know I have two Ansel Adams posters (of his photographs) in one of my rooms, and I although I vaguely know what the subject matters are -- trees and leaves -- I'm not even sure which one is on the left and which is on the right. However, they were gifts so they're displayed more so I don't insult the person who gave them to me than the fact that I find them rewarding in any other way. I guess it's just me, or as Kant so 'brilliantly' stated in his 'Critique of Judgment,' "That which is pleasing is that which is pleasing for me." I'm assuming he said more profound things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do I recall paintings much more readily than photographs?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's as simple as you like paintings better than photographs.</p>

<p>In painting, as with every enterprise, mediocrity, even badness, dominates. Mediocre painters rework so much that they call the work hard. Bad photographers also dominate...but whats the point of such a comparison? Preening, insecurity. Good photography is as rare as good painting, but painters get away with more than photographers can. To disagree you'd have to keep score.</p>

<p>I love Warhol's work, but it wasn't "hard." It was mass produced. I saw literally 50 identical (but for color, which was nearly random) Warhols at DIA Gallery in Beacon, NY. He was into photocopying, and paintings based on photocopies. Easy. He didn't find painting "hard," no matter what he said.</p>

<p>You can see Picasso work on film: Drawings flowed from him with amazing ease. As they probably do with all good painters. Can't draw? Most painters can't. If they could draw they'd draw or etch. They paint because they can't draw. Disagree? It's just your opinion...unless you have statistics :-)</p>

<p>Many drawings and approximations led up to Guernica, and Ipresumably it was an emotional labor for him, but I suspect that each element was easy by itself. I've seen a hundred of those elements.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are far fewer paintings for a given artist due to the time it takes to create a painting, as opposed to a photographer who can turn out far more pieces in a much shorter time. That is, by the way, why I went back to photography. It's easier. Paintings are too hard. - Andy Warhol</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The degree of difficulty is directly proportional to the amount of work you're willing to expend. A quote by Warhol in support of your statement is unimpressive as one can find a quote to support whatever thesis is put forth.</p>

<p>Warhol was a self promoter in the PT Barnum mold, and statements made by him were made as much for shock value as true value...</p>

<p>"In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Andy Warhol, 1968.</p>

<p><br>

Perhaps we're just not far enough into the future, or maybe Warhol was just promoting himself one more time... with either statement

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

</p>

<p>Running Ringling Bros, Barnum & Bailey is probably harder than painting or photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Running Ringling Bros, Barnum & Bailey is probably harder than painting or photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lions, and tigers, and bears...oh, my. Not to mention the clowns...they're the real problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165"><em>Steve Swinehart</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Feb 03, 2010; 04:33 p.m.</em></p>

 

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

<blockquote>

<p><em>There are far fewer paintings for a given artist due to the time it takes to create a painting, as opposed to a photographer who can turn out far more pieces in a much shorter time. That is, by the way, why I went back to photography. It's easier. Paintings are too hard. - Andy Warhol</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>The degree of difficulty is directly proportional to the amount of work you're willing to expend.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So you're saying that if you're willing to expend more work, the degree of difficulty increases all by itself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> A quote by Warhol in support of your statement is unimpressive as one can find a quote to support whatever thesis is put forth.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, right, good to know. Like the statement you just made makes any sense.<br>

Why would anyone listen to a world renowned graduate of the Carnegie Institute of Technology?<br>

Silly me.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p> Steve S consistently addresses questions in interesting ways, not necessarily in a way that I always like but always in ways that are always instructive or stimulating. He isn't a braggart.</p>

<p>He's said a few things that confirm for me that he's intensely well-educated in some of the matters that are of interest here, such as print making. And he's man enough to speak from his own experience...he doesn't rely on the purported fame of his great aunt, parents, former neighbors, or very strange barber.</p>

<p>Quoting Warhol on how hard he finds painting, is especially tiresome when the same person relies so totally on it to frame his posts. </p>

<p>Many of us know from experience with his work that Warhe didn't use that statement honestly, not in any way that connected to his own "artistic" reality (a PR business). He didn't call it a "Factory" for nothing. When that "painting is hard" quote is used it reflects ignorance.</p>

 

<p>Here's the most significant intellectual/artistic material related to "Andy Warhol." <br>

If you have animated and curious kids or grandkids, of if you're personally literate and have a sense of humor, you'll love this. <br>

<a href="http://www.warhola.com/uncleandys.html">http://www.warhola.com/uncleandys.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, right, good to know. Like the statement you just made makes any sense.<br />Why would anyone listen to a world renowned graduate of the Carnegie Institute of Technology?<br />Silly me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>William, why is it that you consistently subsitute your purported education for original thinking? For some reason, you're under the impression that merely graduating from an art school makes your statements more important and insightful than other people's ideas.</p>

<p>My reaction? You went to art school? BFD. Tens of millions of people have been to art school. This is getting to be a little bit like the cartoon character "The Tick" stating - "Look at me, I'm doing laundry!"</p>

<p>So, if bona fides are what impress you and make your statements more important than any one elses - I have a degree in photography from Rochester Institute of Technology, I have a degree in graphic design from the University of Michigan School of Art and Design, I have a degree in art from the University of New Mexico, and I spent a year in the lithographic Master Printer Program at Tamarind Institute (and there are only about 600 people in the world that can make that claim).</p>

<p>So, using your education metric as the basis for importance in a discussion, as far as I can tell, that makes my statements 3 to 4 times as perceptive as your statements. Rather than leaning on your background as a constant crutch and trotting it out whenever you run out of ideas, why don't work on orginal thinking and when you come up with something new or novel - post that...</p>