Birth of an 'Ism?
Yesterdays first question is great, and I want to start a discussion, but it is the second question I want to open.
I am thinking specifically about the shift in the Art World that happened in the late nineteenth century. There is a reason that artist began to move to the impressionistic style at this time. Painters put to use bolder strokes and more vibrant colors to evoke a more visceral reaction from the viewer. Distancing themselves from more representational lines and “photorealistic” depictions. They were also exploring new more real life situations, a shift from the more traditional renascence themes of religion and folklore.
They did this, I believe, precisely because the camera was proving more and more capable of capturing the high detail and a realistic image. They also proved exceptional at portraiture, which freed up the artist to explore new avenues. The advent of the camera freed the painting to impress a feeling rather than impart the visual details. Van Gogh didn’t need to show how the postman appeared and so was free to conjure the man’s “presence”. Ansel Adams could Show you the west, but Remington put the dust in your mouth. A photographer could capture the crowds at the Paris World’s Faire or boaters at a party, but it was Renoir who wanted to impress upon you the flirtatious feelings of actual attendance.
That being said what does the advent of digital photograph herald now that the photographer can do so much with the images they “sample” from the world around us? Now that a camera can tweak an image, punch up colors and shift perspectives, what will the artist move too? Greater abstraction, or will she pick up the mantle of portraiture and photorealism? It is exciting for me to think that we may be on the cusp of a shiny new ‘Ism. What do you think?
view my portfolio:
Comments
Post a Comment