| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2004 11:17:27 AM · #1 |
"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."
- Michelangelo
I was browsing some quotes on "Art" this morning when I stumbled across this one. It made me think for a while. Photography, in many ways, is more like sculpture than painting. The photographer's work is based in reality. The photographer often starts with a block of stone rather than a clean canvas. The photographer chips away bits of stone by repositioning the camera and relocating physical elements within the scene. Each little refinement brings him closer to his finished sculpture.
Michelangelo had an inner vision of his angel. All he had to do was remove the unwanted pieces of marble from the block to reveal the vision.
Just some food for thought...
|
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:26:31 AM · #2 |
Seems like an argument against the purist view of photographic integrity.
Message edited by author 2004-03-18 18:48:21. |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 06:43:10 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 06:45:30 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
03/18/2004 11:49:55 PM · #5 |
| I find it somewhat similar to using creative cropping/framing to pluck an interesting image out of a more mundane scene. I think it is also a variation on the idea of printing the image the way you "envisioned" it, rather than as a straight reproduction of captured tonal values (the "Ansel Adams approach"). |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 12:26:04 PM · #6 |
At any rate, its about extracting your image from a much more expansive 'scene'.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2004 02:23:25 PM · #7 |
John, your observation was beautiful and even add some poetic value but I tend to disagree with the conclusion that photography is closer to sculpture than to painting.
One for all.. sculpture is 3D while both photography and painting are 2D.
In addition to that, a sculpture can be seen in different light conditions while both phoography and painting freeze a single and very specific light condition.
These two points alone are far enough for me to believe that, in terms of distance, photography is much closer to painting than to sculpture.
I hope I did not crash your nice dream. =) |
|
|
|
03/20/2004 03:12:13 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by glimpses:
John, your observation was beautiful and even add some poetic value but I tend to disagree with the conclusion that photography is closer to sculpture than to painting.
One for all.. sculpture is 3D while both photography and painting are 2D.
In addition to that, a sculpture can be seen in different light conditions while both phoography and painting freeze a single and very specific light condition.
These two points alone are far enough for me to believe that, in terms of distance, photography is much closer to painting than to sculpture.
I hope I did not crash your nice dream. =) |
It did not crash my 'dream' :) It actually strengthened it :)
|
|
|
|
03/20/2004 03:30:36 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by glimpses:
John, your observation was beautiful and even add some poetic value but I tend to disagree with the conclusion that photography is closer to sculpture than to painting.
One for all.. sculpture is 3D while both photography and painting are 2D.
In addition to that, a sculpture can be seen in different light conditions while both phoography and painting freeze a single and very specific light condition.
These two points alone are far enough for me to believe that, in terms of distance, photography is much closer to painting than to sculpture.
I hope I did not crash your nice dream. =) |
It did not crash my 'dream' :) It actually strengthened it :) |
You are moving into Poetry.
I deeply envy you for that! =))) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 05:56:21 AM EDT.
