Classical painting and LF photography?

[fast_primes]

I consider my self a photographer, but I'm not (yet anyway) a LF

photographer. A recent viewing of the Vermeer movie: <b>Girl with a

Pearl Earring</b>, led me to ask these questions:<p>

 

1) What major points of view or approach, do LF photographers and

pre-camera obscura painters share? Right off the bat, I'd say you

share at least the following:<p>

 

- Time investment in a single image (while LF is still much faster

than painting of course, it is still the most deliberative of

photography).<br>

- Conservative view (perspective/reproduction ratio tend to be 24mm to

100mm in 35mm focal length terms)<br>

- No uncorrected verticals.<br>

- No unsharp foreground or background.<p>

 

Did I miss any?<p>

 

2) Over and above the image quality of LF, would the above points also

account for the greater psychological impact of LF?<p>

 

3) What does pre-camera obscura painting suggest about human vision

and perception from a photographic point of view? Have there been any

analytical or psychological studies on this? For example, what is the

average focal length in 35mm format terms, of the perspectives

painters painted before camera obscura--50 normal, 35mm wide, 28mm

wider?<p>

 

Thanks.<p>

 

Fast_Primes

[tim_atherton9]

After reading the book the movie is based (it's okay - just a pleasant read that porvoked a few thoughts here and ther) I got the little Tascjhen book on Vermeers - well worth it.

 

Havbe you checked out Hockney's thoughts on this? Very thought provoking and intriguing - he believes the use if such aids goes back to at least 1400 something I think. His book on the topic is well worth hunting down (as is the tv programme).

 

 

http://www.arcspace.com/news/hockney/

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?011126fr_archive02

 

http://www.artkrush.com/thearticles/011_woa_weschleronhockney/index.asp

[tim_atherton9]

whoops - trying to type with a 2 month old in one arm...

[joe_dahlgren]

another point of view

 

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=7&forumID=8

 

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=20&forumID=8

[joe_dahlgren]

Sorry, here is the link I intended

 

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/David_Hockney/hockney1.asp

[alan_bucknam]

Well, only the classical formalists share your viewpoint regarding everything being in

focus....One of the advantages conventional large format rigs have over the older camera

obscura or the camera lucida have is the ability to shift the focal plane in a number of

ways.

 

Regarding your third point: Pre-camera obscura painting would be anything painted..let's

see...before 1040 (the death of Alhazen) At that time, can you give an eample of any

painters who could be considered realists? Think about the importance of symbology

before the Rennaisance....While some scientists and artists had researched perspective,

etc., before the Rennaisance, art was more about the spirit, and less about the descriptive

at this point.

 

I think modern LF shooters are interested in showing the spiritual in something that is so

definitively mechanical and descriptive (i.e. LF).

 

see http://www.cerritos.edu/ladkins/a106/Class%20Notes/The%20Medieval%20Period.htm

and http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/IGC/knowledge.htm

[crispin_agnew]

Well, on the whole I find Hockney far more convincing. Yes, he's a little over the top - as is his style. But overall he makes an interesting a reasonably convincing case.

 

I love these kinds of comments:

 

"Following Hockney�s method, let me speculate that this seems to be Hockney�s attempt to diminish the abilities of universally accepted masters in order to raise himself to their level - or lower them to his. In art, we cannot separate the process from the product, for mastery of the process is necessary for mastery of the product."

 

Hockney has absolutely no need to try and raise the level of his art - he is an acknowledged 20th Century master - and I would say, pretty secure in his work...

 

He has also undertaken exactly the traditional style training they make so much of, and is actually technically very accomplished.

 

Then we should look at who the criticisms coming from (both the article and the discussions) very mediocre artists at best, who don't ever seem to have ever had an original though or impulse of their own.

 

The author states "I discussed Hockney�s New Yorker article with fellow artist Stephen Gjertson..." this is his fellow artists (and implied expert):

 

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=208

 

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/G/Gjertson_Stephen/large/Gjertson_Steve_Four_O'Clock.jpg

 

OMG - that stuff is absolutely horrendous - no wonder they don't get Hockney at all (his actual art, not just his ruminations)

 

or the authors

 

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=967

 

not quite so bad - but really, this stuff is really pretty dull and formulaic and as rigid as a poker.

 

BTW they also make rather to much out of his whole book etc - Hockney is an artists ruminating on art, making some waves, exploring some ideas and a few bees he has in his bonnet - they seem to take what he says as an academic text and take it far too seriously.

 

Again, I think Hockneys basic premise certainly has merit. Indeed - a few years ago in the course of some research I spent a lot of time with various Vermeer's and other paintings mainly of the various Dutch, Flemish and northern European schools - although I wasn't coming to them specifically as a photographer, if you have that in your background and are examining the details, they are in many places quite obviously "photogrpahic" in nature.

 

What Hockney doesn't actually do (and I agree with him here) is denigrate the level of expertise - indeed genius - that these artists had. In fact he is obviously in awe of them. He just sees this as one potential aspect of how they worked - but without a level of incredible talent and expertise the visual tools wouldn't have made one iota of difference and their work would have looked like - well - Mr. Stephen Gjertson's...!

[User_503771]

I think the camera obscura was just a tool, probably saved a lot of time for painters who were already masters of their art.

 

If you've worked in various media, then you know what I'm talking about. After awhile I just get bored with discussions about the debate over technique vis-a-vis "meaning", or is it still really art, etc.

 

A few weeks ago my big sister was in town and we went to the Getty Museum. On one floor I blundered my way into a room that had a bunch of Post-Impressionists -- I recall Manet, Renoir, Degas, Van Gogh's "Irises". This stuff took my breath away. In another room there was stuff from the 1600s to 1800s, some of it practically photographic from just a few feet away. Another punch to the gut!

 

Then downstairs were some Brett Westons and William Garnetts. Incredible printing from incredible negatives! Ouch!

 

But I've also seen big prints from grainy 35mm Cartier-Bresson negatives.

 

All different eyes beholding, all different styles, all great stuff.

 

So who cares if the guy used a camera obscura? Study up on what it takes to get paint to go onto canvas that way, and you'll see what I mean.

 

I guess my main point is that, yes, craftsmanship is very, very important and must be studied and mastered, or the best composition is going to be just crap. But it's still only craft. The work of art is made by an individual, always, and the work of art comes from a unique point of view. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that most of the great artists aren't worried about all those psychological thingies that everybody else reads into them later on, as they're putting the brush to canvas or focusing on the ground glass.

 

I hope this doesn't come across as overly strident -- I don't mean to preach, certainly not to offend. But I feel that I really haven't heard enough lately that art is just beautiful -- that's all! -- and can be made with no other purpose than to give the viewer an uplifting experience. I think that this is an entirely worthy goal for an artist, probably the best one. I know that good -- or great -- art makes me feel more serene, and I just can't fathom that these people who produced that stuff were worried about symbols in their brushes or cameras obscura -- or Rapid Rectilinears!

 

Well, I've been told I talk too much....

[User_503771]

Silly me, I got carried away. I forgot to say what I started out to say: Probably the camera obscura was a time-saver.

 

Large format could be seen to be *not* a time-saver, but it all depends on what you want to produce. Large format's lousy for "grab" shots, sports, etc. But it's great for trees and buildings and detail! And perspective control! So it does what it's supposed to do, and probably saves time and headaches in doing so. I find big negatives much easier to expose and print than small ones. I can spend the time on figuring out how to get the best expression of the idea, rather than how to get a sharp negative from a roll where everything got developed the same way.

 

Anyway, I dig it! And I guess you dig it too, or you wouldn't be hanging around the Large Format Forum!

 

Think I'll go drool over a negative or two....