ultimar, Ha, ha... Marina, it's all simpler and more prosaic. I couldn't decide which was better/I liked it better, with or without the frame, so I posted both
I'd like to take a closer look at this painting... It should be an interesting piece And the frame is too intrusive for me. It's either more elegant, or completely ruined.
Lana Medved 123, Mercy, I'm reading the article now. I was surprised to find an American author, although the plot of "works" made me think of the tragedy being depicted.
Lana Medved 123, after the explanation, not only the frame seemed unnecessary to me, but also the guy is right (doesn't fit into the tragedy, especially in the Apocalypse)
There's nothing special about the photograph here. Just two vague figures. The painting certainly deserves attention. It would be much better if it were cleared of passersby... It would be much better. And more honest with the public, in my opinion.
And the painting certainly deserves attention. It would be much better if it were cleared of passersby... That would be much better. And more honest with the public, IMHO.
A painting without a viewer is a means of disguising holes in an apartment wall
Still, there's nothing like a photograph here.
Still, there's something like a photograph here - the moment.
Still, there's nothing photographic about it. Just two vague figures. And the painting certainly deserves attention. It would be much better if it were cleared of passersby... It would be much better. And more honest with the public. IMHO
Valeriy Sviderskiy, Tell me, why do you go to museums, exhibitions, vernissages, and other cultural venues? When you look at a painting, photograph, or sculpture, you find something you admire, something that surprises you or makes you think, or perhaps something else—something you're looking at that didn't evoke any reaction or response. But in both cases, you're expressing emotion. You're not alone in this; the people around you quite possibly see and share your emotions... You don't necessarily engage in direct dialogue and exchange of opinions, but your connection with the people around you is certainly there. As a photographer, I'm interested in emotions and the connections that arise between people around me. The source (the work of art) is, of course, interesting, but not primary. Of course, there are separate disciplines of photography, such as catalogs... Here, the goal is to create the perfect image of the work of art itself. But... I don't do catalogs.
The third option is perhaps the most laconic, and I'd prefer it on a dark gray background. I read about the artist and his painting with interest... Impressive. Few contemporary artists paint in this technique today. Thank you!
Impressive. Few contemporary artists paint in this technique today.
Olga Dan, what technique? This is academic painting, with compositional structure and, as you put it, old-school "technique." Only the imagery is modern. Perhaps you meant something else?
Olga Dan, What technique? This is academic painting, with compositional structure and, as you put it, old-school "technique." Only the images are modern. Perhaps you meant something else?
Cinnabar, Yes, exactly—old-school painting techniques. It's impossible to tear your eyes away from such works by old masters... Leonardo, Rembrandt, Rubens... These works look more like photographs...
Cinnabar, Yes, that's right—in the old-school painting technique. It's impossible to tear your eyes away from such works by old masters... Leonardo, Rembrandt, Rubens... These works look more like photographs...
Well, there's nothing supernatural about it, really. This "studio technique" is used by most seasoned painters, of whom there are actually a great many. You just have to know where to look
Lana Medved 123, I like the third option, where there's no person on the right. And the fact that there's a spectator with a black back is very good, IMHO.
Ha, ha... Marina, it's all simpler and more prosaic. I couldn't decide which was better/I liked it better, with or without the frame, so I posted both
Don't beat yourself up, you still have plenty of time.
It should be an interesting piece
And the frame is too intrusive for me. It's either more elegant, or completely ruined.
I like the frame better too, in my opinion, it adds visual depth. Well, I finally noticed... that's good!
The painting (The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy: September 11, 2001) is truly very interesting; it's in the Museum of Modern Art in New Britain, CT.
https://nbmaa.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/collection-highlights-the-cycle-of-terror-and-tragedy-september-11-2001/
The works are by Graydon Parrish. If you're interested, here's a little about him: https://shadedmindsblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/graydon-parrish-a-bridge-between-realist-and-contemporary-painting/
Aha, so you're in favor of that option?
Still, there's something like a photograph here - the moment.
Tell me, why do you go to museums, exhibitions, vernissages, and other cultural venues? When you look at a painting, photograph, or sculpture, you find something you admire, something that surprises you or makes you think, or perhaps something else—something you're looking at that didn't evoke any reaction or response. But in both cases, you're expressing emotion. You're not alone in this; the people around you quite possibly see and share your emotions... You don't necessarily engage in direct dialogue and exchange of opinions, but your connection with the people around you is certainly there. As a photographer, I'm interested in emotions and the connections that arise between people around me. The source (the work of art) is, of course, interesting, but not primary. Of course, there are separate disciplines of photography, such as catalogs... Here, the goal is to create the perfect image of the work of art itself. But... I don't do catalogs.
More like an attempt to capture this moment