Andrew Nichols wrote:Sorry the the whole foundation of painting is based on magical realism.
Think religious art surrealism
And most paintings in general.
That statement really makes me think you have never seen a painting
Or only care about photos.
Maybe you just worded it wrong.
But it got up my goat.
One of the reasons photography falls by the way side is it lives in a grey area of reality. It is a copy of a copy and prone to the worst distortion and pixelated grain soaked two dimensional flatness.
Painting however expressive or abstract will always be more infinite in realism
Is because it is real
It is paint on canvas
It is fractal detail. Go take a look at a painting and look right into it. Bring a microscope to see more!
Painting has the ability to create scores from the imagination that photography can never ever capture.
But yes photography can easily capture detail that would take along time and be impossible for a painter
But paint mixed and swirled around the canvas has the infinite presence of reality. Whereas zoom into a print and you get dots
Whatever the rights or wrongs of it this is an adroit essay in what I think is the Po Mo style. The challenges it offers are couched in insistence, paradox, contradiction, and playful rhetoric; all valid tools of philosophical debate. A generation of students in the 1980's and 1990's passed their art theory courses with exegeses like this. The famous French thinkers Jean Baudrillard and Jacques Derrida would have been proud.