About me and ... photography versus painting
I studied art in Siberia,
My hobby
always included different sports activities, extreme hiking, climbing and
photography.
With my friends we've made extreme tours to Altai, Tyan
Shan, Fany, Pamiro-Alai, Pamir mountains through
Most often I had no opportunity to take with me even one extra gram, and,
moreover, to sit somewhere and paint. The aim of such expeditions was to get
through the places that people did not visit yet or some did this occasionally; we have
been financed under the condition that we deliver good description of the way
with illustrating it photos. For this reason most of members of the group had a
photo camera or two (complex system cameras are often getting frozen while
simplest ones still operate). Such kind of travels are
inspired not only by the high level of difficulty, but, to a certain extent, by
an opportunity to visit an untouched land, nature. Of course, we’ve made a
lot of remarkable photos. Then the natural question arises:
Why to paint in
realistic style at all?
The answer to this question I observed myself when watched as one of my colleagues ( member of other group) painted a wall of the mountain which their group planned to attack. The mountain on his picture looked much more higher, depressingly gloomy and dark, not like it looked for me and how it would be documented on a photo. I’ve understood that somewhere at the bottom of his heart he was afraid of this mountain. It was fully understandable: the 1.6km-high wall was indeed difficult and they have been the first team that was going to attack it. My colleague was going to go on this wall and I was not.
Our relationships with this wall have been
different. And this was reflected in his picture!
Thus, a photo reflects a fact as it is, whereas a picture reflects also an interpretation of it (sometimes, unintentionally!). Moreover, a painting often reflects not a fact (even if it is done in realistic style) but something that could happen. An artist can add something from his imagination that would not be present on a photo.
Of course, with new opportunities, presented by
digital photography and nice software this difference is more and more washing out: many of modern
artists draw, seeking for right color gamut and
paint first on the computer screen: this is faster and much cheaper than
to buy some extra paints, canvas, etc.
Moreover, many have moved to the digital art completely!
As for me, I prefer to use all opportunities. For example, imagine that you want a 40 x 60 portrait of a child. It is very difficult to force a child to sit still for a long time before a painter. But one can make a hundred photos, to choose the one that suits and then to think about the alternatives: either to order a photo print on canvas or on paper for water-colours, or to order the same portrait to an artist. This, of course, depends on taste, but one has to bear in mind some facts.
First, a photo portrait is not going to live for a long time, the ink paints are going to loose colours, while the oil paints on painting just in order to become fully dry require about hundred years.
Second, as was mentioned above, a painter can replace a background or add or remove some details.
Third, the painter can emphasize some feature or make them softer.
At last, photo
and painted portraits look at the wall in completely different ways and both
have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Welcome to my art!