In a message dated 1/3/2003 12:10:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "Jostein" wrote > > > > At 03.01.2003 13:03:44, "John Whicker" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >In what way is light "embodied" in photography but not > > >in painting? Surely both are techniques for capturing > > >light reflected from the subject? > > > > Tongue moving towards the cheek, I'd say that in > photography the light is > > deeper embodied because it has to be present in the > capturing moment. Whereas > > a painter is not bound by the same constraints. > > > > Jostein > > > Hmmm. You'd have to be an exceptional artist to paint > *without* light! > > John BTW - you can paint at night with decent lights (ones that do not have a distinct color cast because a color cast changes how the color of the paints look as the painter uses them. I always used to use grow lights -- fluorescent lights that are as close to sunlight as possible for growing plants). Doesn't photography mean "painting with light?" A photography captures one moment in time, with light. A painting may capture more than a moment in time, and it is captured with paint. How the light is represented is very much controlled by the painter. One painting I painted has both a night sky and a daytime sky in it -- in one surreal painting. So when it comes to the medium used to create the end product, yes photography embodies the light. That is not to say some famous painters, like Van Gogh, haven't represented light very well in paint. Doe aka Marnie
