Photograph or Art? -138

Copying accurately what a painter sees which might be a beautiful scene could be effectively photography so wherein lies the difference between that and the representations or likenesses an artist makes? Also, does the difference between traditional representations have more to do with willful, artsy, distortion or with the driving vision arising from what they see?

In Response to Antiguos

QUESTION:The old definition of Beauty by way of Alberti was the adjustment of all parts proportionately so that one cannot add or subtract or change without impairing the harmony of the whole. Would you agree that beauty can be based on what we see as painters as you describe ,and beauty that has to do with making a painting or drawing beautiful in itself? A drawing of Degas, Ingres, Sargent can be beautiful ,It is obvious if you put these three painters in a room with the same model they would draw and paint different... then beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder as each painter will represent the same model different, one idealized, the other short and Sargent elongated... Nature is beautiful indeed, but then why a photo and a painting differ? I read old books where they speak of the painter as being capable to capture it. In my life drawing sessions it takes me 3 hours to actually “see” ,the longer I paint something the more I see.

Antiguos