Thanks for your thoughts, folk..
Interesting that there seems to be a bit of resonance here and there.
I hope I can open the cat-flap if I bump into it.
And, no - painting over a photographic print just wouldn't cut the mustard.
Not one of the galleries I would hope to be exhibited in would look even
once at such work from me.
I know of one local artist who photographs very old gold-miner rock-shelter
cabins ( 150+ years old) and paints over the unattractive/distracting
surroundings on quite small prints, to bring the attention right on to the
cabin(s). But that's not the same. And she exhibits only/mainly in a gallery
run by a collective of which she is part. has inside running, so to speak.
What I would use photographic prints for is (a) help provide an accurate
outline of the essential structural elements in the picture, and (b) help get
the colour / shading just right. Both for when I got home and worked on the
real painting. But we all know how colour temperature can play havoc with
"true colour rendition".
When creating a "painted over" photographic print, one would have to bear
in mind that this is called mixed media.
I have in mind true water colour paintings. That's what has sold in the past
and continues to sell.
Look at ... http://www.http://bensart1.homestead.com/
Whatever you might think of his paintings, people like them and buy them.
Mixed media paintings usually also are associated with 'avant guarde'
painters ... I'm not going down that road, for now.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|