From: Jack Fulton (jefulton1@attbi.com)
Date: 03/16/03-09:49:08 AM Z
I'm going to support John's assumption/speculation. Painters worked for
centuries perfecting the ability to render cloth accurately . . and
transparency, portraiture etc. The portrait was a prime source of income for
an average painter. Even many what we call famous painters such as Velasquez
(now in NYC . . gotta fly out just to see that) were commissioned to do
portraits. Photography wiped that gig out and painters often had studios
nearby the atelier's of photographers so they could 'finish' the photograph
by adding color, some dimensional structure such as buttons or lace.
My presumption is that one day, the painters looked around without much to
do and noticed their palette. Holy Cow! look at those colors! (Regard saint
de vache à ces couleurs! ) was the reaction. Voila, Go for it. Manet led the
way and soon Cezanne. I believe it to be the first aspect of Post Modern
deconstruction. Am kidding re the latter but now I think of it, there might
be some sense there which led later to philosophical thoughts. If Picasso
lived next door to Gaudi's house and the house had thousands of bits of
broken pottery and Pablo got the idea of cracked pieces creating a whole . .
. why, the sum of the parts is . . . . . . blah, blah, blah. etc.
Jack
> I am imagining that the close study of photographs and the
> experimentation which could have ensued among painters, at that time, could
> have brought the Impressionist movement into being. Who knows? ? I feel that
> the clandestine use of cameras and photos by artists is generally accepted,
> now, amongst art historians. But its a great book if you can get a copy from
> the library.
> Enthusiastically.
> John-Photographist-London
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:25 PM Z CST