Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
Totally agree with you, Gary.
But, there is one thing that can't be replaced -- seeing these works of art in the flesh. There is no way to portray texture and colour, correctly and faithfully over this medium.
H
|
Hi H,
Couldn't agree more.
For example, one of the first I went and checked on the site was The Starry Night
in the MoMA in New York.
In the flesh, it is simply breathtaking from the moment you enter the gallery.
Its highly textured, three-dimensional swirls of paint along with subtleties that
go with that, such as the highlights from light reflecting off those textures, are
technically impossible to capture in a flat image, no matter how high the resolution.
It is often by these textures that one not only appreciates the actual physical
execution of the work, but that one can sense the passion of the mind and hand
that went into creating it.
Another example of what is hard to capture on the web is what I will
call the the obligatory "big painting" most galleries seem to have
one or more of somewhere in their collection.
It is often baroque, tens of
feet wide and tens of feet high, probably painted under commission for some patron
and not necessarily to everyone's taste. You know the type. It probably once looked
good on the mansion wall somewhere. Often technically brilliant, it may not feature
high on the list if you were allowed to take one picture home with you, but
nevertheless you walk away thinking you have to hand it to the guy for
taking on such a big project and it had a pretty neat frame too.
Anyway, it is pretty hard to capture the man hours that went into works like
that when you are looking at an image of it even on a reasonably sized LCD monitor.
You really have to go to the gallery and look up and say, "Holy Smokes!
This painting takes up the entire wall."
