Gurney journey zaryanko’s extreme realism gas 4 less

######

For you first question, about whether a work of art should assert itself as a painted surface, I don’t think there are “shoulds” in rt, really. gas x chewables reviews It is up to the artist, the work should be what s/he wants I guess. Paintings that do not look like paintings – I am thinking here of hyper-realistic paintings of food, for example – tend not to hold my interest for long, not much beyond “wow, look at the Incredible technique in that”. This is the problem, I guess: now we do have photos we don’t need this type of work to show us a stark reflection of reality.

For your second question, whether a painting can create an illusion without being like a photo, I wish I could attach a picture of “Zorro” by Richard Schmidt. It is wholly illusionistic but it is not photographic. power company near me One of my favourites! Any of his work is in this category. Anything by Velasquez, also. gas utility worker Anything by Rembrandt, also. Your work, too, James! I love your paintings of diners and gas stations and supermarkets. electricity rate per kwh philippines They are not photographic but I feel like I would recognise these places if ever I do get to visit the USA.

That is an incredibly observed and painted depiction of light and space in that interior considering he couldn’t use photographic sources. gas after eating red meat Even with photographic portraits known by the time he painted the second example, it still had to have been a stunning sight to see the improved sharpness and color of the painting. But as far as capturing life, I’m afraid I have to agree with the critics. electricity allergy It’s an illusive thing. Sometimes the more we try to make something perfect and so real looking, the less it it achieved.

On the other hand I remember seeing a Van Dyke portrait and noting how it looked more like a realistic depiction than a photograph could have captured. I think this was partly due to being painted over time, and thus is closer to the way we experience something, and not as an image frozen from a fraction of a second. 1 unit electricity cost in bangalore This was especially seen in the fugure’s gaze. I think a thousand pictures could have been taken and never capture that feeling of a soul looking back at you. Also selective focus and edge control is extremely important, and that is something a camera will never do as well as a good portrait painter.

One thing I did not see mentioned in the comments: for me, one of the determinants of an impact of an art piece is what might be called the "element of surprise" – how we lay our eyes on something and just go "wow" because we did not expect what we’d be seeing. And one of the things that makes me go "wow" is when a completely convincing picture is achieved with unexpected means (hence the surprise). It’s kind of a no-brainer that meticulously and competently copying what’s in front of us would create a convincing representation. gas oil ratio calculator But when a live face is looking at us from an amalgamation of seemingly random brushstrokes or paint splotches, it is really nothing short of magic (I like to paraphrase Arthur Clarke and proclaim "Any sufficiently advanced art is indistinguishable from magic") To lay my hands on some of this magic is one of the biggest enjoyments for me in my art journey. Therefore, "all else equal", I would take a "painterly" piece over a "photographic" one, just because the element of "how the hell does this work" is greater in the former.