|
|
|
|
Shengrong zou [email protected] https://1x.com/simon1968 https://500px.com/p/simon1968
Throughout the history of western painting and photography art, art has been far away from the public for too long! Over the past 100 years, the self-emotional aesthetics of the extremely left leaning modernist are becoming more and more dominant, but they also divorced from the general aesthetics of the public. Photography is a well-loved art and deserves to be loved by the public. Impressionist photography has a wide range of subjects, which, like impressionist painting, comes from daily life, but technically places too much emphasis on fuzzy technology to achieve the purpose of highlighting the main impression. We think new impressionist photography can absorb the essence of impressionist painting and other left leaning modern painting. The theme comes from rich daily life. Technically, it uses the change of composition angle, light and shadow contrast and color contrast to highlight the individual subjective impression of the photographer. Among them, 0.618 proportion expresses the object in life, and the rest 0.382 proportion expresses the cognitive , psychology, thoughts and feelings of the photographer's, which is in line with the golden section law. Different from the extreme right-wing realism，new impressionist photography meet the needs of photographers' emotional expression. Different from the extreme left-wing modernism, new impressionist photography can also serve the public's aesthetics, adding beauty to the public in the trivial and tedious daily life, and adding a little romantic and idealistic light to the mundane realism.
. introduction
From the emergence of photography, the purpose of photography should serve the public life, should express the artist's cognition, psychology, thought and emotion.
Since the left leaning of modernism at the beginning of the last century, the extreme trend of thought of modernism, the modern photography is too perceptual and ignores rationality, excessively pursues new photography technologies and new ideas, excessively pursues the personal emotional needs of photographers, and deviates from the public aesthetics.
Painting and photography should balance the aesthetic and individual psychological needs of the public. They are should be as popular as Impressionist paintings in those days.
Each sect of photography originated from painting, developed and gradually separated from painting and became a separate art.
The left and right deviation of the photographic trend of thought determines various sects of photography.
About Sources of photographic subjects:
right: from all aspects of life Left: from religion, personal dream
Form right to left：Realism, naturalism, paintism, surrealism, Impressionism, new realism, Dadaism
About Emphasis on photography technology:
right: emphasis on painting and other techniques left: pure photography
Form right to left：Paintism, naturalism, Impressionism,
Realism, new realism, surrealism, abstractionism, Dadaism, purism
Expression of pictorial emotion: 0.618 proportion mainly reflects the subject, and the other 0.382 proportion expresses the subject emotion of the photographer
right: pure object left: pure self
Form right to left：Realism, naturalism, paintism, Impressionism, new realism, abstractionism, Dadaism, Surrealism
Impressionist photography originated from impressionist painting, but it was too rigid in using vague expression to highlight the artist's impression. We advocate the creation of new Impressionism,remove the overly vague concept of Impressionist photography, absorb the advantages of impressionist painting and modern sect of photography, add beauty to the daily life of the public, and express the pursuit of sunshine life.
Impressionist paintings are very popular within the general public, especially Monet's Impressionists in the early stage. They do not pay too much attention to details of the object, but highlight the painter's impression. The late Impressionists paid too much attention to artiest own feelings and boldly used colors in an emotional way, which broke away from the rational reality of the object and the public's aesthetics. The sect's innovative spirit is commendable, but the art of excessive individuality is divorced from the public. The new Impressionist photography can absorb the essence of Impressionism and modern sect of photography . we suggest new impressionist photography’s theme comes from life. Technically, it highlights the artist's impression. The 0.382 ratio in the photo expresses the photographer's emotion and neither left nor right expresses daily life with artist feeling.
Photography subject matter, photography technology and emotional expression should not be too left or too right. Balance the proportion and express the rationality of things and the sensibility of photographer in daily life
The new Impressionist photography comes from Monet's Impressionism, not the later exaggerated Van Gogh Impressionism. Monet's greatest contribution to Impressionism lies in the fact that the subject matter comes from life. Technically, new Impressionist photography focuses on the expression of visual light and ignores some details. Emotionally, the proportion of small portion expresses the painter's emotion
New Impressionist Photography subject: all aspects of life
Photography technology: not only rely on blur technology, but also rely on composition angle (Adjust the relationship between the subject and the environment, and adjust the contrast and balance between falseness and reality), light and shadow contrast and color contrast to highlight the photographer's impression and feeling.
Pictorial emotion: the main proportion of 0.618 reflects the rationality of the subject, and the remaining proportion of 0.382 expresses the subject emotion of the photographer.
Art comes from life. We suggest 0.618 proportion of new impressionist photography expresses life, and the rest 0.382 proportion expresses artist's emotion. Only these photos that conform to the public's aesthetics can resonate with people. The art sect should not be the left leaning sect’s exploration of the technology and idea.
The new Impressionist photography enables the public to discover and solidify the brilliance of beauty in the trivial and boring daily life, add a bit of romanticism and idealism to the ordinary life, and add a bit of optimism to the pessimistic life. The life far away is wonderful and poetic because of art.
This is obviously a discussion about Photography as an art form, as opposed to a commercial technology. I have not heard or read about this particular explication of photography and where it fits in artistic endeavor discussion.
I appreciate the discussion and hope it generates good discussion. I do have a critique of the terms "right" and "left" at least from linquistic point of view. In the sentences you list "right to left" but then the item are read left to right. Right and left also have other connotations which confused me in your essay. If these terms are fixed, fine but if you or others are developing this argument it might be worth using different language.
I hope this discussion is continued because I am not commercial and not a documentary photographer so Photography as an Art form is interesting to me.
thank you
This is obviously a discussion about Photography as an art form, as opposed to a commercial technology. I have not heard or read about this particular explication of photography and where it fits in artistic endeavor discussion.
I appreciate the discussion and hope it generates good discussion. I do have a critique of the terms "right" and "left" at least from linquistic point of view. In the sentences you list "right to left" but then the item are read left to right. Right and left also have other connotations which confused me in your essay. If these terms are fixed, fine but if you or others are developing this argument it might be worth using different language.
I hope this discussion is continued because I am not commercial and not a documentary photographer so Photography as an Art form is interesting to me.
This is obviously a discussion about Photography as an art form, as opposed to a commercial technology. I have not heard or read about this particular explication of photography and where it fits in artistic endeavor discussion.
I appreciate the discussion and hope it generates good discussion. I do have a critique of the terms "right" and "left" at least from linquistic point of view. In the sentences you list "right to left" but then the item are read left to right. Right and left also have other connotations which confused me in your essay. If these terms are fixed, fine but if you or others are developing this argument it might be worth using different language.
I hope this discussion is continued because I am not commercial and not a documentary photographer so Photography as an Art form is interesting to me.
This is obviously a discussion about Photography as an art form, as opposed to a commercial technology. I have not heard or read about this particular explication of photography and where it fits in artistic endeavor discussion.
I appreciate the discussion and hope it generates good discussion. I do have a critique of the terms "right" and "left" at least from linquistic point of view. In the sentences you list "right to left" but then the item are read left to right. Right and left also have other connotations which confused me in your essay. If these terms are fixed, fine but if you or others are developing this argument it might be worth using different language.
I hope this discussion is continued because I am not commercial and not a documentary photographer so Photography as an Art form is interesting to me.
I've read your post &, frankly, don't understand much of it - particulalrly the left/right differences. To my mind- Art is art. Everything else is everything else. In many of my recent landscape photographs I've attempted to incorporate elements of the famous landscape watercolor painter J.M.W. Turner into my landscape photography. Turner is known for his expressive colouring & imaginative, impressionistic, sometimes turbulent landscapes. To that end, many photographs in this collection are composed of areas of vivid, painterly colors & high contrast luminosities, instead of photorealistic depictions of the subject. Example below.
I quite like your photo. I also process photos to get an "Image", not necessarily realistic. I have a friend who has emulated Vermeer's light and images of working people in her photos. I think that is a good use of photography as an "art form". But you raise the age old question of what is "art" and more particularly what is Photographic "art". I suppose that Professionals who do Real Estate, Product, Wedding and Advertising photography have much less freedom of Image selection, not to say that their images are not "art", many probably are art. Without economic incentive perhaps freedom to pursue any type of image allows us to seek "Art" as a goal of our work.
I saw a YouTube Video discussing self knowledge through the Master/Servant dialectic:
https://youtu.be/bKz-HtOPvjE
The point was that without another consciousness, you could not understand your own consciousness. So I think analogously that without another opinion or critique, it is hard to define "art" at least subjectively. So, that is why people who do photography come to this site, I suppose, and they get affirmation that they are "artistic" or that their images are "good". I am not sure that the process is very objective. I know that I like your photo but I am not sure it means I think it is "art" but rather "appealing" and reminds me of some of my images. If 500 people liked it or someone purchased it, does that make it "art"? Is just one enough (your welcome)?
On the other hand, Bird photographers, Landscape photographers and other Nature photographers are judged on how realistic and not manipulated their photos are.
I've read your post &, frankly, don't understand much of it - particulalrly the left/right differences. To my mind- Art is art. Everything else is everything else. In many of my recent landscape photographs I've attempted to incorporate elements of the famous landscape watercolor painter J.M.W. Turner into my landscape photography. Turner is known for his expressive colouring & imaginative, impressionistic, sometimes turbulent landscapes. To that end, many photographs in this collection are composed of areas of vivid, painterly colors & high contrast luminosities, instead of photorealistic depictions of the subject. Example below.
I quite like your photo. I also process photos to get an "Image", not necessarily realistic. I have a friend who has emulated Vermeer's light and images of working people in her photos. I think that is a good use of photography as an "art form". But you raise the age old question of what is "art" and more particularly what is Photographic "art". I suppose that Professionals who do Real Estate, Product, Wedding and Advertising photography have much less freedom of Image selection, not to say that their images are not "art", many probably are art. Without economic incentive perhaps freedom to pursue any type of image allows us to seek "Art" as a goal of our work.
I saw a YouTube Video discussing self knowledge through the Master/Servant dialectic:
https://youtu.be/bKz-HtOPvjE
The point was that without another consciousness, you could not understand your own consciousness. So I think analogously that without another opinion or critique, it is hard to define "art" at least subjectively. So, that is why people who do photography come to this site, I suppose, and they get affirmation that they are "artistic" or that their images are "good". I am not sure that the process is very objective. I know that I like your photo but I am not sure it means I think it is "art" but rather "appealing" and reminds me of some of my images. If 500 people liked it or someone purchased it, does that make it "art"? Is just one enough (your welcome)?
On the other hand, Bird photographers, Landscape photographers and other Nature photographers are judged on how realistic and not manipulated their photos are.
thank you very much
thank you
rhank you
I quite like your photo. I also process photos to get an "Image", not necessarily realistic. I have a friend who has emulated Vermeer's light and images of working people in her photos. I think that is a good use of photography as an "art form". But you raise the age old question of what is "art" and more particularly what is Photographic "art". I suppose that Professionals who do Real Estate, Product, Wedding and Advertising photography have much less freedom of Image selection, not to say that their images are not "art", many probably are art. Without economic incentive perhaps freedom to pursue any type of image allows us to seek "Art" as a goal of our work.
I saw a YouTube Video discussing self knowledge through the Master/Servant dialectic:
https://youtu.be/bKz-HtOPvjE
The point was that without another consciousness, you could not understand your own consciousness. So I think analogously that without another opinion or critique, it is hard to define "art" at least subjectively. So, that is why people who do photography come to this site, I suppose, and they get affirmation that they are "artistic" or that their images are "good". I am not sure that the process is very objective. I know that I like your photo but I am not sure it means I think it is "art" but rather "appealing" and reminds me of some of my images. If 500 people liked it or someone purchased it, does that make it "art"? Is just one enough (your welcome)?
On the other hand, Bird photographers, Landscape photographers and other Nature photographers are judged on how realistic and not manipulated their photos are.
thank you
