Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> "but you see, it isn't a fish, it is a painting of > a fish." > "Awfully tiny, isn't she?" Clearly, Picasso would like people to see images for what they are: symbolic representations, compositions, visual ideas and would also like people to forget about images needing "be" the object of inspiration or even "look like" the object of inspiration. A photograph certainly is not the reality. The map is not the territory. A hologram is not the reality. Virtual reality is not reality. The CD is not the concert. What would be the point? The best paintings, photographs, drawings, what ever, hopefully do something quite different from duplicating reality. The photo realist painters of the 70's and 80's really put a new twist on these ideas when they created canvases which looked more like photographs of their subjects than paintings. So were they paintings of the subject matter? Or were they paintings of the photographs of the subject matter? Who cares? They sure were enjoyable to view! And to think about! And that's the point for me. Is it fun to look at? Does it hold my interest? Do I get a good feeling? A challenge to my preconceptions? Teach me something about seeing? and on an on. George