Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Friday, October 07, 2016



As selfies continue to rise in popularity around the world, it is useful to explore the history of the self-portrait and find the distinction between self-indulgence and art






Selfies are nothing new. People have been creating self-portraits since the 15th century; in fact, the first self-portraits were akin to modern day photo-bombs, with artists painting themselves into crowd scenes in historical, mythological or religious paintings. Jan van Eyck’s self-image can be seen in a mirror in the Arnolfini Portrait (1434). Diego Velázquez painted himself into Las Meniñas (1656), a portrait of the Spanish royal family, essentially setting himself up as the first portrait-bomber, the first truly modern artist. An infant might well have said, “Hey, I thought we were going to get a nice family portrait. What’s Velázquez’ big head doing in the shot?”
 Velázquez’ big breakout in painting himself into the portrait was essentially a statement that the artist can be more important than the painting. He proclaimed to the world that this portrait of royals also staked the claim that the artist is greater than the work itself; the artist becomes one with his art.





Some have speculated that Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa (1503–1506) may actually be a self- portrait of the artist in drag. Though probably not so, it is interesting to ponder that da Vinci, who did have a hidden side to himself, could keep that aspect hidden, yet revealed simultaneously.

Virginia Oldoini Countess of Castiglione (1837–1899), better known as La Castiglione, a mistress of Napoleon, was the first to effectively and exhaustively use the new medium of photography for her selfies. She had herself photographed over 700 times over four decades at a time when just one could be a day-long affair, dressing herself as a variety of historical and mythological figures, usually embedded in elaborate tableaux art directed by the Countess herself. She only laid aside her photography practice after advancing age began to alter her face. She could no longer stand seeing herself.

The queen of self-portraiture in art history has to be Frida Kahlo, who was the first major international artist to use herself as the central subject of almost all of her work. Obsessed with self-image, she famously said, “I paint myself because I am so often alone and because I am the subject I know best.”






Using herself as a subject allowed her to expose herself and explore all her hopes, fears, dreams, accidents, operations, miscarriages, infidelities, the alarmingly public break-ups with famed artist husband, Diego Rivera, as well as her highly publicized affair with Leon Trotsky, prior to his murder by Stalin.

Arguably today’s “Mistress of Selfies” is Kim Kardashian, who posts pictures of herself on social media that are picked up by news services and published daily, often in excessively revealing costumes. Once, on a vacation to Thailand, Kardashian took 1,200 selfies in a single week’s time. And in 2014, she published a book containing 357 selfies. One wonders if she will stop taking selfies as she ages, as others have done, or will she develop as an artist and begin to reveal truly thoughtful insights on herself through her portraits. In the 22nd Century, will the late Kim Kardashian be lauded as one of the great artists of the early 21st Century, or will she be remembered, if at all, as a narcissistic fame-whore?


Before you take that next selfie and post it on your Facebook page or Instagram, ask yourself what the portrait says about you, truly. Is it just another fish-lip photo? Or are you revealing something real and true about yourself? Is it just a selfie or is it art?

Enjoy!!



Saturday, October 01, 2016




The Visualization of art is way different from its perception. There are several rules and norms to affiliate an art form and to categorize it under prevailing/new art movements. This process becomes more and more difficult when the particular art is subjected with a controversy or a long running debate. Photorealism, have similar fate. In simple words It’s an art to create or replicate a subject to make it appear real (almost like a photograph). Off course there’s lots of hard work and talent, that ignite the magic (and I am a real big fan). Although there were several points put up by many critics, discarding this genre from the art category. Debate on both sides are on fire and seriously non-conclusive.


In a traditional sense, drawing has been regarded as an imitative art, meaning that the artist usually creates images based on real things. Of course, this notion can be transposed from simple copying of entire scenes to creating a completely original assembly from bits and pieces of real/unreal things. But, to really confuse someone’s mind about whether the image in front of them is a mere photograph of an existing scene, or actually an uncanny drawing, the art style would be Photo-realism. Now, for a second, let us examine the actual term “uncanny”. It was coined back in 1906 to describe something in a bizarre state, perceived in terms of its uncertainty, but it took Sigmund Freud to attach the meaning to the word we use today. 


Uncanny is a concept of a particular moment when something is both familiar and alien at the same time, creating a feeling of discomfort. This is why photorealism is most often described with this particular word, because the best of the works from this style definitely blur out the lines between familiar and alien by creating something so close to reality that it actually perplexes the viewer. Before the stunning CGI artwork we have nowadays, there were artists who created paintings by hand, only by looking at a photograph. So let’s go back to the ’60s and ’70s, when Photorealism started emerging, and see why it received much positive and negative feedback from the art world, how it developed through the years and at which point “real” becomes “too real”…


Photorealism- Art or Not art
Arthor: Bob Lansroth

Whether it’s art or not, and where the line can be drawn between something considered as art or not is quite difficult to differentiate. For example, if someone with poor drawing abilities would draw a cat, it wouldn’t be considered as art, because it obviously doesn’t look much like a cat due to the fact it is badly drawn. Now, would it be art if that person could draw much better? Probably yes, now, since realism is often praised in the world of art, is there a point at which drawing becomes too real to be considered art? Of course, if you would take a photocopy or a scan, it wouldn’t be called art; it would just be a mechanical reproduction. But, once you include the human factor, a photorealistic image, made by hand and not by technological means of duplication, it magically becomes art. So, is it “just” the great technical skill that is enough for something to be considered as a piece of art, or does it require something more than incredible accuracy and immense drawing technique?


Many would argue that the technical skill can be surpassed by a decent color photocopier or a computer, thus avoid using the word art in such context, but this discussion brings us to an analogy of photography. If photography is merely capturing an image of what is already there, where is the art in that? It is right there in the photographer’s perspective, the exact choice made by the person wielding the camera in what to capture and from which angle, moment and perspective. If a person creating a photorealistic recreation of a photograph doesn’t have that “artistic” input of a photographer, then what is artistic about the process? Some would say even those renditions are not strict interpretations of photographs; instead, they incorporate additional, often subtle, pictorial elements to create the illusion of a reality which does not actually exist, or cannot be perceived by the human eye. In the end, as in many things in art, and life in general, the final conclusion remains behind the individual perspective. The answer lies in the eye of the beholder, whether you find the artistic strain within it, or just admire it for the sheer talent, Photorealism is remarkable and amazing in its own right.

At the end, I would like your suggestions and views on this topic. 

Know us

Our Team

Contact us

Name

Email *

Message *