Sunday, 9 August 2009
12fp(s) - painting 3
I'm feeling positively indifferent about this one. I like the overall image, but it doesn't really stand out or say anything exciting - so it kind of just sits there...
I suppose it's good that the painting isn't shouting for attention it doesn't deserve, and likewise it's good that the painting looks pleasant enough to appreciate if it does manage to grab the viewers attention.
After doing this painting, I decided to test what a bit of Animation post-production work does to the overall image [below], so that I can discover whether my concepts for the second painting series may work...
For this painting the post-production work simply involved adding a depth of field to the overall image by manually blurring the background in Photoshop while keeping the foreground characters in focus. The final effect hasn't made a great deal of difference to the overall aesthetic, but I think it does add that little bit more of an Filmic feel to the painting because the depth of field now more closely resembles the view one may get through a camera lens.
I had utilised this depth of field technique in several of my Animation projects during my time at college, and because this painting series is a hybrid of my work in both Painting and Animation, I think it was an acceptable thing to try. Another cultural issue that I think justifies this digitally-manipulated technique within the field of traditional painting is that many people now view the majority of traditional artworks on computers instead of gallery visits and books - therefore if digital files are the most common way of consuming traditionally-made artworks then Painting as a medium should be able to recognise the computer as another tool in this digital age. The only problem with such digital techniques is if an artist tries to sell physical versions of digitally manipulated work as originals (rather than prints), because it is only ever going to be a copy/print when the artwork was created in the digital domain.
Below is the digitally altered version of my original painting:
The digital alteration is not blatantly obvious (at least not without it being pointed out like in the text above), but comparing the right hand side of the backgrounds will make it most noticeable because that is where the alterations are strongest.
If anyone has comments or opinions regarding the digital modification of traditional paintings I'd appreciate hearing them (ie: has this technique worked/improved the original? Is the computer an acceptable artistic tool? Should such techniques be 'allowed' when the work is sold commercially in any format?)