From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 04/09/02-08:30:34 PM Z
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Farah Mahbub wrote:
> Salaam to everyone
>
> This summer I will teaching photography to a small group of fine arts
> students ... I think it would be interesting for them ..... if I gave them a
> lecture on how close photography and painting have been in history .. would
> love it if you guys contribute to my info collection that I have been doing
> these days . thank you
Having given a series of lectures on that very topic myself (also to fine
art students, including docents at ICP), I predict that you will be as
astonished as they will. They will be astonished by the idea, and you will
be astonished that they are so astonished -- and all will be
delighted. (Of course that was several years ago, the mix of painting and
photography not as familiar as today... but I bet they'll STILL be
astonished.)
Far and away the best book on the topic (and it is WONDERFUL) is Aaron
Scharf's "Art and Photography," Penguin Press, reprinted pb 1983 & 1986.
ISBN 0 1400.67736. My comment in the P-F bibliography is, "The original,
major, & still best reference work about photography's influence on
painting. An education in itself. Beg, borrow or steal it."
I'll add here that it was widely distributed & in print for some time (if
not still), so odds are good for finding a copy.
Van Deren Coke had a good book on the topic also about 10 years before
that. Scharf's was paperback, Coke's was coffee table. But there's one by
an Englishwoman whose name I forget (something like Marion Warner??)
that's terrible. No insight, little info, just lists of names.
However, if you can dig up a copy of Aaron Scharf's other book, "Creative
Photography," Reinhold, 1965 Lib of Congress catalog #65-13370, it is
delicious, wonderful, collector's item, but long out of print.
(Both references from "Violating the Medium" bibliography, P-F #3. pp 17
& 18. Did you think I just knew that offhand?)
best,
Judy
Of the >
> Farah Mahbub
>
> Fine Art Photography
> 40/2 ,6th Commercial St, D.H.A Phase :4
> Karachi - 75500 - PAKISTAN
> # (9221) 5888412
> http://www.farahmahbub.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alejandro Lopez de Haro" <alhr@wanadoo.fr>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Jed Perl / was Sandy's kallitype method; good and bad
> photography
>
>
>
> Not only was occasionally but more often as one can imagine. Just to give
> you an example, Cézanne's self-portrait of 1861 was painted directly from a
> photograph.
>
> Degas, along with Delacroix, are perhaps the greatest exponents of the use
> of photography for paintings. As an example, Degas' self-portrait: "Degas
> saluant" circa 1862 was painted from a photograph; also his: "Portrait of
> the princess de Metternich".
>
> Courbet's "Les Baigneuses" and "La femme au perroquet", both were from a
> photograph. The former from an unknown photograph and the latter from
> Villeneuve. Also his painting "Le château de Chillon" was painted from a
> photograph of Adolfe Braun. And his "Seascape" was from painted from a
> photograph of one of the most outstanding photographer of the XIX century:
> Gustave Le Gray's "Sky and Sea".
>
> We don't even have to go that far in time, even one of the most influential
> movement in painting: Cubism came from photography.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro López de Haro
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ARTHURWG@aol.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Jed Perl / was Sandy's kallitype method; good and bad
> photography
>
>
> > I note that even Paul Cezanne was known to work occasionally from
> > photographs. Arthur
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST