Looking at artworks online, I'm afraid to dismiss an image when it may be a painting, but being so small and easily consumed by the Internet-browsing-eye can be passed for a photo. Not that there is anything especially wrong with photography if its one's medium of choice. But I have to ask this, how much does it take to set up one's vision to then capture it on film or digital camera? Sure it may take a lot of orchestration of lighting and equipment, sorting out from maybe hundreds to pictures taken digitally, maybe tweaking it in photoshop, but at the end of the day how much more faith in your vision does it take if you execute it manually in a painting? The time and devotion it takes to paint something in a way that challenges your notion of machine made image vs man made image is something that can't be done with absolute conviction in your vision.
As far as I conclude, it goes God - Man - Machine. Man is closer to the source of divinity than machine, being that machine is man's creation. I use photography, the Internet and photshop when I must, but I much rather have the subjects in my presence for a direct translation from nature (Divine creation) to man's (also Divine creation) expression of it on canvas. We all know and hate it when technology fails us, when your hardrive goes corrupt, all your data lost, or your ISP is down, so I'd rather use technology as a tool, not as a crutch.
No comments:
Post a Comment