Comic Genesis Forums

ok

???

Deathbringer was responding to a spam post that got deleted.

However, it is an interesting subject for discussion. If you study paintings and various art forms, they tend to either strive to be photorealistic, or to twist and stylize photorealism--taking something realistic, and making it the furthest thing from. Whereas photography strives to capture a snapshot of real life, paintings capture hyper-life, a dimension of realism so unrealistic at times that it's beyond realism.

Painting takes realism and pushes it beyond realism. Whether it's by making something completely realistic, so much that it might be a photograph, or by grittyness or surrealism or stylization. And that's where the distinction lies. Photography is only ever a moment of life, captured forever by the flash.

Paintings can be anything.

Where a camera captures realism, paintings capture something BEYOND realism.




Okay. I admit it. I'm just pulling artistic bullshit out of the collective book of artistic bull's rear.

I visited the MOMA this summer, and took pictures of a lot of paintings.

Protip: Turn off your flash, or the guards get really pissy with you.

Well there's historical dimention of the issue, that invention of photography basically liberated painting of the function to record reality, which prompted artists to verge towards more self-expression, abstraction, conceptualism, and pure technical advancement toward realism wasn't as important as before.
But in other ways, similarity between painting and photography (at least art photography) is that they are both actually artist's representation of reality, of his inner world and how he sees things around him. Difference is that, while to painter, all means are available, photographer has to do it by picking existing elements and perhaps altering them with effects available in dark room, so painter has much more unlimited freedom of expression, which is suitable for some artists, while others prefere to work within certain limitations.

I thought photoshop was the boundary between photography and painting. Hell, photoshopping something is an art form! The real trick would be to make a comic out of it.

Photoshopping something is digitally altering or creating media. I'm not saying its not art, but its not painting, and its not photography, and the line between painting and photography is pretty clear. They're 3 different media, and though they share things, its like trying to blur the lines between watercolor and pottery

I'm not in any sort of position to argue the position regardless!

Anyways, this thread only exists because the OP was a random spam!

Redtech wrote:I thought photoshop was the boundary between photography and painting. Hell, photoshopping something is an art form! The real trick would be to make a comic out of it.

actually there's a decent element of photoshop in the work that I do, so my comic while primarily photography includes a decent bit of photoshop.