| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2014 12:34:41 PM · #1 |
by Richard Tuschman
Sigh. So much to learn. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 12:48:58 PM · #2 |
somewhere along the way, he lost the hop.
it makes me think that one advantage of painting is that you aren't so beholding to the personality of the model |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 01:08:28 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
somewhere along the way, he lost the hop.
it makes me think that one advantage of painting is that you aren't so beholding to the personality of the model |
A fascinating thought. Are we beholden to something, regardless of the medium? |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 01:25:51 PM · #4 |
| Agree with Don: something's missing. The environment (the "set"), the lighting, and the palette are all quite Hopper-esque, but the models... the models are positively baroque. In the end, the images seems schizophrenic to me... I actually do admire the skill with which they are crafted, but in the end they seem cloyingly artificial to me. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:11:34 PM · #5 |
Am I missing something? I thought these were quite lovely. I actually liked them better than some of the Hopper paintings.
Message edited by author 2014-04-16 14:15:33. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:32:44 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Jules1x:
Am I missing something? I thought these were quite lovely. I actually liked them better than some of the Hopper paintings. |
If you like them better, then you're kind of agreeing, since that is also a difference. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:34:05 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by posthumous:
somewhere along the way, he lost the hop.
it makes me think that one advantage of painting is that you aren't so beholding to the personality of the model |
A fascinating thought. Are we beholden to something, regardless of the medium? |
yes, the painter is beholden to the personality of the painter, in a way that the photographer can more easily escape. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:36:10 PM · #8 |
| pretty... but they seem noticeably tilt-shifty and don't quite have the stark quality of hopper stuff, imo |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:40:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Jules1x:
Am I missing something? I thought these were quite lovely. I actually liked them better than some of the Hopper paintings. |
They ARE lovely, and skilfully done. It's more of a disconnect thing for me, at the conceptual level. The Hopper paintings are of a piece, essentially, and there's an aura of "pastiche" about these photographs. The backgrounds, the environments, are one layer of reality and a much more detailed and abrupt figure (or figures) is dropped into that environment. It's like some sort of post-modern stage set for baroque-moderne figure models. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:44:01 PM · #10 |
| disappointing, and ultimately depressing. all visual artists should study music to understand how good cross fertilization can work. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 02:48:06 PM · #11 |
I see what you're describing, Bear. It's as if the bg and the models are of two different styles - the background being quite "Hopperesque" in its detail minimization, while the models are the opposite, quite detailed.
Since he is not trying to actually BE "Hopper", and these are "inspired" by Hopper, I don't mind his take on the style. Except for the very first one, where the technique seems to make it more "miniaturized" than "Hopperish". Regardless, his use of light is delicious. |
|
|
|
04/16/2014 04:57:15 PM · #12 |
| I like them, but they would be decidedly better on velvet, or if they included Marilyn Monroe, Bogart, and Elvis. |
|
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: 07/23/2025 11:39:48 PM EDT.
