Painting vs. Photograph

This forum is dedicated for discussions on making creative images of nature. Images can be attached too as part of the discussion thread.

Moderators: Saurabh R. Desai, Adithya Biloor, Madhav Jois, Vikas T R, Prashanth Sampagar, Nevil Zaveri, Raviprakash S S








Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ganesh H Shankar » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:01 pm



I enjoyed going through this video a lot. While the painting itself is beautiful, what I enjoyed most are his words..

"May be there is a light source"

"I don't want to kill all black"

"may be may be may be may be there is a little light coming through..."

"deep in the woods"

"still not looking for details..things are far away you can't see details.."

"there is spot here where light comes through.."

"May be there is a little happy hill"

"May be may be may be may be there is a little hill and it comes down.."

"it is your world, you decide.."


There was nothing, the whole landscape was in the mind of the artist which unfolds in front of our eyes.

I have more to write under this thread (after 2-3 weeks from now). I would like to contrast this medium and the medium of photography.

For now let me stop, if you have any thoughts please share.
Ganesh H. Shankar
Wishing you best light,

Image
Personal Websites Fine Art Nature Photography
Facebook Pages Ganesh H. Shankar | Fine Art Nature Photography | Art Of Life
User avatar
Ganesh H Shankar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Bangalore, INDIA

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:51 pm

Thank you Ganesh, for sharing this lovely video showing how artist brings out his mind n heart on plain black canvas .. Incredible!!!

.. may be may be may be .. feel free .. may be a tree or two ..
.. if you don't like it, change it .. anyway you want ..
.. you have unlimited power !!
and it's all true for a painting!
To me, Painting is more about 'skills to put your imagination on canvas'.

In photography*, you have to take from 'whatever is available' in front of you.
You have very little choice .. either change field-of-view and/or point-of-view and have to wait for a possibility!

A painting may take as long as Painter gets satisfied, whereas photograph is just a little 'slice of time'.
Painting is devoid of any time related thing/term;
whereas, 'time' is crucial factor in Photography, be it shutter-speed or a moment!

*considering non-manipulated images.
Wish to know more perspectives on this, to learn more n make the most out of 'photography'.
Regards.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby nirlep » Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:56 pm

Peekaboo!
Thanks for sharing Ganesh! The words really bring out the pathos as the landscape is skilled into life. Nevil you are so right in saying that a photograph is just a slice of time. main difference between photography and painting in my opinion lies in the power exercised. Painter has immense power over the subject. S'he (S'he this is a new word invented by me to include both genders :) )literally invents the canvas. Photographer on the other hand is defined by the powerlessness. Total submission to what is given; "Nikon pilgrim" (borrowing from an amazing poet Gerson da Cunha) if you may...gleaning, never making; revisiting, never arriving; behind the camera always...

Thanks Ganesh once again for such incisive penetrating collections

off to work again :(

PS: Though the painter mentions infinite freedom yet each stroke is measured, each placement formulated
nirlep
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Adithya Biloor » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:02 pm

Ganesh,

Yet to watch the video fully, just a thought occurred after reading you.

I think we start from completely different direction. We start removing the elements in a scene/ We use optics, exposures to do that. For e.g there is a bird and it's habitat. We only retain the bird and reduce surrounding elements to background or foreground.

Adithya
Regards,
Adithya Biloor
www.lensandtales.com
Adithya Biloor
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:17 pm
Location: Biloor, Nittor -p,Hosanagar-Tq, Shivamogga -Dis, Karnataka,India

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:23 pm

Yes, Adithya, in photography we do have some control over DOF.
Tfs.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Rajkumar » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:24 pm

Interesting. Here are a few points that came to my mind

- I love it that he started with a black / dark canvas and added light, tones and texture to it……..we should think like that sometimes
- Our process should be 80% the same only 20% difference is the difference in execution and different skill type
- We have to note he is thinking light, texture, tone, color, color of stones, species of plant and their colors, even the season and whether monsoons have been good, underwater stones and the ripples they create, color of rocks , color of rocks in different places etc…he has taught himself to see and notice all this …of course, we should also sit at a scene for 4 hours and look at all this maybe even make a pencil sketch
- There are choices we have to make to create a picture we have in mind-----1. technical – lenses, POV, DOF etc, ----2. seasonal – weather, season, time of day, fog etc skills 3. processing and printing skills to get the right feel. Our process is different in that we just cannot assemble experience from varied timeline into one picture
Bottom line many times my photography is more opportunistic and reactive rather than pre-meditative and deep seeing and observing …..Learning could be that we need to slow down make much fewer pictures. If we are in a scene for say 5 hours ….see for 4 hours and take a picture for 30 min and process for 30 min …. We should see without the camera and only compose through the camera ….
Just some thoughts would love to hear others
Another allied point a painter friend of mine always makes the observation I seem to shoot too many varied types of subjects....makes it difficult for him to relate to the work....
Art is about what is inside rather than what is outside
Rajkumar
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:17 am

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:10 pm

@ Raj,

Somehow, I think n take photography quite differently or say I give more weightage to that 20% !!!

- There are choices we have to make to create a picture we have in mind-----1. technical – lenses, POV, DOF etc, ----2. seasonal – weather, season, time of day, fog etc skills 3. processing and printing skills to get the right feel. Our process is different in that we just cannot assemble experience from varied timeline into one picture
.. this seems limited to genre/style where 'time' is almost at rest!

When it comes to photography, I believe nothing is as big as 'a moment', esp. when things are happening (if not, I prefer to wait to happen). Our spontaneous reaction to the moment is of utmost importance including what to include/exclude/compose to bring out the needed message/story/thoughts and all the rest is technical for better quality aesthetics. Yes, post-processing also help at times to bring out our 'seeing'.

Ofcourse, all our experience n knowledge will certainly help to 'see' things others may not.

Interesting discussion, I am sure there will be learning from everyone's output here. The beauty of learning is in diversity of our 'seeing'! :)
Regards.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ghanshyam Savani » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:53 pm

There is a wonderful instrumental classical Indian fusion music album by Pt Ronu Majumdar and Pt Vishwa Mohan Bhatt and other Indian classical maestros- ‘Songs of Nature- Bubbling Brook’ is an another good example so far as the expression of human feelings through the various forms of art is concerned. Here music is the medium of expression. The entire series under the title of ‘Songs of Nature- Beckoning Hills, Dancing Daffodils, Flame of the Forest, Orange Horizons, Twilight Tunes- all are wonderful music albums expressing nature through sounds. This music is inspired from Nature. When we listen to these music albums, they take us to some unknown realm of joy and bliss.

All forms of Art reach Poetry. Poetry is the essence of all forms of art. And the soul of poetry is music. When we enjoy any expression of art whether it may be painting, literature, sculpture, music, dance, photography or any other form of art; the ultimate essence of all is poetry. Photography is also a journey towards poetry that CNP in its current phase of its expression has been doing the same for the last several years. CNP sowed the seeds of taking photography into a new perspective, new dimension.

The core intent and sublimation through practicing any form of art is to create poetry because poetry is the culmination of all forms of art. All objective forms of art aim at reaching poetry. Let us take the examples of Khajuraho temples, Konark temples, Ajanta-Ellora caves, Taj Mahal are the examples of ultimate flowering of art creating in us sheer poetry. They take us in our solitude; they bring us serenity, tranquility and equilibrium into our being. We become poetically healthy; we become musically healthy and we feel spiritually healthy when we enjoy art in our meditative state of consciousness. Art is less mindful and more heartful and more soulful.

Here Bob Ross creates wonderful and amazing poetry through the loving and gentle touch and strokes of colorful brushes. He paints poetry. He colors poetry. He canvases poetry and he brushes poetry. So is the true photographer- he clicks poetry, he focuses poetry, he blurs poetry, he frames poetry. Mr Bob Ross finds source of colors while a photographer finds a source of light. A sculptor finds a source of shape in stone. A musician finds a source of sounds. A poet finds a source of feeling through words. All artists find sources. And Nature is the ultimate source of inspiration for all practitioners of all forms of arts. Mr Bob Ross paints Nature- paints Bubbling Brooks. Pt Ronu Majumdar and Pt Vishwa Mohan Bhatt play Nature– play Bubbling Brooks through their musical instruments. A nature photographer clicks Bubbling Brooks. But all of them aspire to express their inner feelings; they want to express their souls through their arts. They ultimately want to compose poetry.

But an artist is an artist who brings other fragrances into his form of art. A poet tries to bring some fragrance of music into his/ her poetry, he tries to create picture, an image of some abstraction or feeling in his creation. A photographer tries to bring poetry and musicality in her creations. A photographer tries to bring painting like touch in her creations. A painter tries to bring some concreteness, some sharpness, and some realism in his creations. A sculptor tries to bring some flow, some grace, and some feminine touch in stone. Most of the artists try to remove masculinity in their creation to bring some feminine grace in their creations. It is a great weaving of different types of different fragrances. And there is grandeur and sublimity in such blending of different flavors and fragrances. So to me, painting is painting- it cannot be photography; photography is photography- it cannot be painting and so is with the other forms of arts. We just have to enjoy fusion and blending and different rendition taking art higher and higher to taste the eternal Eternity- we may call it Nature, Almighty, God or religion.
Last edited by Ghanshyam Savani on Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ghanshyam Savani
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat)

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Rajkumar » Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:41 pm

Yes Nevil there are definitely at least 2 types of photography
- One I see more like a dance in tune and in rhythm with the situation on hand ...feeling that emotion and knowing when the elements align....bringing the visual, poetry and music together as Ghanshyam was alluding to ( yet to read his write up in details :) )

- There can also be the slow photography where one grows organically one with the subject and that "seer" and "seen" is completely lost and it is almost as if the subject is photographing itself ....

Just opening some thoughts here. Would not over defend ...... :) but I find it wonderful even to say wrong things ...when I am chased I run and climb a tree to escape but get a better vantage by that .... :D
Last edited by Rajkumar on Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Art is about what is inside rather than what is outside
Rajkumar
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:17 am

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:00 am

@ Raj,
.. when I am chased I run and climb a tree to escape but get a better vantage by that ..
.. very interesting .. keep more coming :D

By this thread, we are expecting to have as many perspectives on 'Painting vs Photography' as possible, so that we can learn What a photographer can have, that a painter can't?! n vice versa, to evolve further.

Regards.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:10 pm

Friends,
Do pour-in your views n opinion. You may also post here link/s related to this discussion.
Thank you.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby nirlep » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:56 pm

Sometime ago I came across an article elaborating or trying to understand

"“All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other kinds of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it.”

― Walter Pater

Will try getting the article and share the link. In the meanwhile the quote above whether true or not? further adds to the mystery :)

Nirlep
nirlep
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ghanshyam Savani » Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:19 pm

On Painting & Photography

Philosophical difference or therapeutic acquiescence between photography and painting is the process in creation. Naturally painting takes a considerable time to accomplish creation while photography is basically all about finding out some extraordinary moments that are generally not acquainted to casual, monotonous and mechanical way of seeing as generally most of us do in our daily routine. Photographers wait for some glimpse, some spark of abstraction, and some intuition to descend to relate his inner visualized essence with whatever is available before him. A photographer does not have that much space and freedom as a painter has. A photographer is time-bound, moment- bound, light-bound and technology-bound. A painter works in installments of time blocks available to him while a photographer has a creation captured in the fraction of the second he is available to. But, of course, he has a lot of plans and preparations- a thought process, vision.

Painting takes time and photography has a time value. During the process of painting, an artist passes through different upheavals of moods, psychological changes in him, external influences he has upon him, internal urge he is driven to, past memories he has and much more than this. A great deal of occurrences happens during this time of accomplishing painting. Painting having been manual exponent; the mood of an artist affects the painting consistently. In a way psychologically it can be said that the time the painting takes to be accomplished is the psychological pictorial document or inner psychological imprint of the artist. A painter has an esoteric psychological color palette in him while the photographer has a digital color palette. So the greater the painter he is who has the greater the sense to perceive the natural tones to prepare the mixture of colors similar to the reality. A photographer has to accurate digital white balance, hue and saturation. Obviously here a painter has a greater challenge than the photographer.

Painting is a manual rendition with brushes and colors on the canvas while photography is a capturing art in moments with a digital instrument called the camera. Can’t we say that in a painter, there is a 70 % painter in him and 30 % of a photographer and so vice versa with the photographer? Do you think a good painter can become a good photographer more easily than a good photographer can become a good painter?

A painter needs to learn the accuracy of the sense of scale in his creation while a photographer has to choose elements in his images to give a scale to his creation. A painter learns to arrive at appropriate sharpness for his elements in the canvas while a photographer learns the skill to achieve focusing the necessary elements he wants to create his image through. But when both of them grow, they learn to bring appropriate blur at an appropriate level to bring into the creation the sense of pure abstraction and sometimes to bring concrete abstraction. Here painting and photography both are quite near. Sometimes some blurry images or long-exposured images look alike painting or painterly touch in them. It becomes, quite often, very difficult to come to a judgement whether the image is a painting or a photograph on a digital screen.

To me, painting is quite deeper form of art than the photography because painting is the inner catharsis of an artist whether it is subjective or objective. In recent modern medicine, painting is taken as a therapy. It has greater therapeutic value. Painting is therapeutic just like many of the arts. It provides a conduit to emotional release. This is well demonstrated in how painting is being utilized today as a means of therapy and rehabilitation. Photography doesn’t have such scientific researches on therapeutic value. Is a photographer a failed painter? Or is a painter a dormant photographer? What happens when an artist is both a painter and a photographer? Photography involves a meeting of many minds- camera, computer, software, printer, paper, physics, engineering and lot of other involvements while a painter on one place of his own choice without much dependence is contented.

-Ghanshyam Savani






The following answer to the question asked to Osho enlightens the path of an artist in a great spectrum of consciousness that we need to meditate over.

What about art and enlightenment? when you are creating a poem, a painting, sculpture, music, you can feel very close to the meditative state. Yet, it is not pure nothing-ness – because it has an end, a goal. it also enhances the ego. Won’t you ultimately have to transcend this kind of creativity?

Art depends on you. If you are pathological, your art will be pathological. If you are enlightened, your art will be enlightened. The art carries your quality.

If you go to Ajanta, Ellora or Khajuraho, you will find a totally different kind of art. If you listen to classical music, you will find a different quality of art. If you listen to modern music, a different kind of art will be found there. If you see Picasso’s paintings, they ARE pathological. Something is ill – something is ill in Picasso and something is ill in the world that Picasso is going to represent in those works of art.

Never keep a Picasso painting in your bedroom, otherwise you will have nightmares. It is very representative of this society. The society is ill, neurotic, but the art depends on you. The art does not descend out of the blue, it comes through the artist, it brings the artist. It makes the artist visible to the world – that’s what art is. That which is hidden in your heart, you bring it into a painting, sculpture, song, dance. You make it available. You open your heart.

But you can open only that which is there. The dance of a Nijinsky cannot be the dance of a Meera. And the philosophy of Nietszche cannot be the philosophy of a Buddha. It is bound to be diametrically opposite.

The pathological art comes out of inner conflict, tension, ego need. It relaxes you like any catharsis relaxes you. If you are angry and you shout and you hit – even if you hit a pillow – that helps. You feel relaxed. Now there are schools in the West which think mad people can be helped through art – therapy through art. And they are right. If a mad person is given painting to do, if he simply paints, it is going to help, because whatsoever he paints will dissipate his madness. It will come out, it will be thrown out. He will feel unburdened and clean. But ninety-nine percent of art is like that. It is certain that if Picasso is not allowed to paint, he will go mad. It is certain that if Van Gogh is not allowed to paint he will go mad. He did finally.

Art out of madness, art out of neurosis, art out of pathology, is not real art. Gurdjieff used to divide art into two kinds. He used to call this kind of art subjective, and another kind – the Taj Mahal, or Khajuraho – objective, because when you have painted, your work is finished but the painting will live. If you have put in the painting a certain pattern of neurosis, whoever will see the painting and think about the painting and look at the painting will have the feeling of the same kind of illness arising in him – the same nausea, the same sickness. The painting will become a mandala; it will become a yantra. That’s how in the East we have used paintings: as yantras.

A pattern can be created so that if you look at it, it gives silence. A pattern can be created so that if you look at it, it makes you tense. The objective art, Gurdjieff says, is the art which leads people towards silence, towards blissfulness, towards inner harmony, towards grace. And the art that leads people towards pathology, neurosis, perversion, is not really art. You can call it art, but that is a misnomer.

What about art and enlightenment? Art has nothing to do directly with enlightenment, but enlightenment has much to do with art. When many enlightened people exist in the world, they create a different kind of world, they create different kinds of things, naturally. Zen art has a quality of its own. Watching a Zen painting you become meditative; watching a Zen painting you are transported into another world. Listening to an ancient song like Bhagavad Gita, just listening – even if you don’t understand, even if you don’t know the language, the Sanskrit language – just listening, just the tonality of it, just the timbre of it, just the music, the melody of it, and suddenly you feel great silence arising in you, flowers showering inside you, something opening, something blossoming.

The world needs enlightened art. But that cannot be managed by teaching people how to create more art. That can be managed only if people start moving towards their inner core of being.

Whenever somebody arrives at his innermost core, he is bound to express it. Every enlightened experience is bound to bloom into a thousand and one lotuses. When Buddha became silent, when Buddha arrived home, when he knew who he is, he started speaking – his words are his expression. When Meera arrived, she started dancing – her dance is her expression.

Each enlightened person w8ill find a way to express that which has happened to him, because is part of that happening that it has to be expressed. You cannot hold it, it overflows. But to different enlightened persons it will happen in different way. Buddha never danced; that was not his way, that was not HIS thing. He never sang, he never composed poetry – that was not his thing! But if you watched deeply, the way he walks is poetry, the way he sits is poetry, the way he gestures is dance. Even while sitting under his Bodhi Tree, unmoving, there is a great dance inside. Those who have eyes, they will be able to see it. This is his way of expressing.

So different people arriving will express differently. Somebody may become a painter and somebody may become a singer – it depends! It depends on what potentiality you are carrying. Your enlightenment will become a rider on that potentiality and will be expressed through it. But the basic thing is not art – the basic thing is samadhi. Let there be samadhi first, and then whatsoever you are capable of giving to the world, will be given. Whatsoever you are capable of sharing, will be shared. And there will be no ego arising because you have painted, because you have sung, because you danced – there will be no ego arising. And there will be no motive in it. There will be no tension behind it. If nobody comes to listen to you, you will not miss. You will remain like a flower, blooming in the deep, dark forest – nobody passes by, but the fragrance goes on being released to the winds. It does not matter.

The artist hankers to express. To an enlightened person expression is natural, like breathing; there is no hankering. The artist is continuously fighting to pave his way; the artist is motivated; hence, he lives in great tension. It is not just accidental that artists suffer more than anybody else from mind diseases – too much tension. They have to create, and they have to compete, and they have to prove, and they have to leave a signature in the world – all ego efforts.

An enlightened person lives without any motive. He simply enjoys it the way it is, and whatsoever happens is good. He is blessed and he goes on blessing. If somebody receives it, good; if nobody comes to receive it, that too is good.

Osho
Zen: The Path of Paradox, Vol 03
Ghanshyam Savani
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat)

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ghanshyam Savani » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:37 pm

........More on Painting

you say: yet painting a picture, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem all bring the same joy. the same joy! Yes, they can -- because art is just in the middle between both, equidistant from religion and science. Art has the qualities of both. One aspect of art is scientific, the technological aspect. Hence the scientist can paint and enjoy painting, and will have the same joy; and the mystic can also paint and will have the same joy as in prayer, as in meditation -- although both are doing the same thing, the mystic's painting will be totally different from the scientist's painting.

You can look: modern painting in the West is too much under the influence of technology. It has lost beauty; it is no longer helpful in bringing you to the divine presence that permeates existence. On the contrary, it simply reflects the insane mind of man. Looking at Western painting you will feel dizzy, nauseous, ill.

Zen Masters have also painted, but their painting is totally different. Watching a Zen painting you will feel uplifted; a feeling of subtle joy will arise in you. You would like to dance or sing or play on your flute. Zen painting comes from the other side, the mystic's side. Picasso, Dali, and others come from the side of science. Now, there is no similarity between a Picasso painting and the painting of a Zen Master, no similarity. They are two totally different worlds, and the reason is that the painters are different.

Yes, Ananda Prabhu, you may be feeling the same joy in painting, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem. It is all mind. Solving a scientific problem is mind; your poem will also be more or less mathematical, logical. It will have only the form of poetry but its spirit will be prose.

That's why in the West poetry is dying, painting has become ugly, sculpture is no longer representative of nature. Something is immensely missing: the spirit, the very spirit of art is missing. Looking at a Zen painting you will be overwhelmed; something from the beyond Will start showering on you.

Have you watched a Zen painting closely? There are a few things you will be surprised to see. Human figures are very small, so small that if you don't look minutely you will miss them. Trees are big, mountains are big, the sun and moon, rivers and waterfalls are big, but human beings are very small.

In Western painting the human being is very big; he covers the whole canvas. Now this is not right, this is not proportionate, this is not true. The human being covering the whole canvas is very egoistic -- but the painter IS egoistic. The Zen Master is right: man is only a tiny part in this great universe. The mountains are big and the waterfalls are big and the trees are big and the stars and the moon and the sun -- and where is man?

Just the other day I was looking at a Zen painting. The men were so small, two small figures crossing a bridge, that I would have missed them because tall mountains and trees were covering the whole painting. But there was a note underneath the painting saying, "Please don't miss: there are two human figures on the bridge." I had to look very closely -- yes, they were there, two human figures, very small, walking hand in hand, passing over the bridge. This is the right proportion; this is a non-egoistic painting.

In Western paintings you will find the whole canvas covered. In Zen painting only a small part of the canvas is covered, and the remaining part is empty. It looks like a wastage: if you are going to make such a small painting, why not use a small canvas? Why use such a big canvas which covers the whole wall, and just in the corner make a small painting? But the Zen people say that's how things are: "Emptiness is so much all around. The whole sky is empty -- how can we leave out the sky? If we leave out the sky the painting will be untrue."

Now no Western painting has that vision, that we are surrounded by emptiness: the earth is very small, humanity a very small part of the earth, and infinite emptiness all around.... To be true, to be existentially true, the emptiness cannot be left outside; it has to be there. This is a different vision, from a different side.

Zen painting is not done in the Western way. In Western painting you will find that the painter goes on improving: over one coat of paint there will be another coat of paint and still another coat of paint, and he goes on improving and touching up and doing things. Zen painters cannot do that; that is impossible. They use a certain kind of paper, ricepaper, on which you can make only one stroke. You cannot correct it; you have to leave it as it is. The paper is so thin that if you try to correct it the whole thing will be lost. Why is rice-paper being used? So that the mind has nothing to do -- the mind is constantly trying to improve, to make things better. It has to be from the heart, a single stroke. If your heart is full of it, it will come right. But you cannot correct it; correction comes from the mind.

Zen painting is never corrected; if you correct it your correction will always show that you are not a Master. It has to come out of your meditativeness, your silence. Your feeling of the moment is spread on the rice-paper.

Art is just in the middle, equidistant from science and religion. It can be both. It can be scientific art, as it is in the West -- that's what you mean, Ananda Prabhu. It can be religious art: you don't know anything about that yet, because before you can know anything about it you will have to know what meditation is.

Meditation is not a state of concentration; it is not a state of mind at all. It is a state of total mindlessness -- and not a state of sleep either. No mind, no sleep; no mind, but total awareness. Out of that awareness you bring a different quality to music, to painting, to poetry. And out of that meditativeness you can bring a totally different quality to science too. But before that can happen we will need large numbers of meditative people around the earth.

-Osho
Be Still And Know
Ghanshyam Savani
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat)

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:01 pm

“All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music. For while in all other kinds of art it is possible to distinguish the matter from the form, and the understanding can always make this distinction, yet it is the constant effort of art to obliterate it.”
.. quite thought provoking n apprehensible, Nirlep.

@ Ghanshyam Savani,
I disagree to many opinions of Osho, but it really doesn't matter! .. as I believe, every perspective opens up new possibilities in 'seeing'! :)

Thank you.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ghanshyam Savani » Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:30 am

Something very sublime and essential for those who aspire to go on journey of any form of art ought to read insights of the seers like Osho, G I Gurdieff, J Krishnamurti, Khalil Gibran, Leo Tolstoy and others to help ourselves to go into the the mystery of the Existence and thus to attain the ultimate truth that all artists thrive for through their various expressions through various forms of arts- and photography, too, is one of them......... We come to know where we are on this journey when we meditate over such ever new and ever refreshing insights......Our limited perspective gets nourished and gets new wideness-es, new spaces and new horizons. We become new-winged and new-in-sighted. We come out of set mindsets and we soar in open nameless consciousness. It gives us sparks, ignition to lighten up our tiny lamps of creativity. We are habituated to divide everything into parts whether it is science, art, religion or philosophy, but life is whole and only in this wholeness we can understand the nuances and beauties of this Existence through different perspectives and dimensions. And I find these long texts quite helpful to go beyond the minds to taste 'no-mind-ness'.

-Ghanshyam Savani



Don't Miss This................................


Osho,
Is it ever possible to paint a totally satisfying painting?

While painting, each moment can be totally satisfying. But once the painting is complete it can never be totally satisfying, because if it is totally satisfying the painter will have to commit suicide. There will be no need to live any more.

That’s why I say life is longing, pure longing - longing to attain higher and higher peaks, longing to go deeper and deeper into existence. But each moment can be utterly satisfying; that difference has to be remembered. When you are painting, each brush, each color that you throw on the canvas, each moment of it, is totally satisfying. There is nothing more to it. You are utterly lost, possessed, if you are a creator.

If you are only a technician then it is not so. The technician is not lost while he is painting, he is separate from his painting. He is just using his knowledge. He knows how to paint, that’s all. There is nothing in his heart to paint - no vision, no poetry, no song. He has nothing to create, but just the technology. He is a technician, not an artist. He can paint - but while painting it is not meditation for him, it is not a love affair for him. He is doing it; he is a doer, separate. But the creator is not separate while he is creating, he is one with it. He is utterly lost, he has forgotten himself.

That’s why when painters are painting they forget about food, forget about thirst, forget about sleep. They forget about the body so much that they can go on painting for eighteen hours without feeling at all tired. Each moment is absolutely satisfying.

But once the painting is complete, a great sadness descends on the real painter. These differences have to be remembered. When the painting is complete, the technician feels very happy: a good job done, finished. He is feeling tired; it was a long tiring process, no contentment on the way. He was just waiting for the result, he was result-oriented. He wanted to finish it somehow, and now it is finished. He takes a deep sigh of relief. He is happy, not while he is painting but only when the painting is complete.

Just the opposite happens to the creator. He is happy while he is painting; once the painting is complete, a great sadness descends on him. “So it is over? That peak, that climax, that orgasmic experience is over? That thrill, that adventure, that going into the unknown is over?” - just as lovers feel sad after a deep orgasm: a subtle sadness, beautiful in itself, of tremendous value - far more valuable than the happiness of the technician, because out of this sadness another painting will arise, out of this sadness another longing to soar high, another aspiration to reach beyond, another search, another inquiry, another pregnancy. The painter will be pregnant soon, will feel full, so full that he will have to share it again.

It is said that when Gibbon, the great historian, finished his great work about world history. Thirty-three years it took to finish it, and he was so tremendously happy for those thirty-three years that it is said that he didn’t age. For those thirty-three years he remained exactly the same, as if time never passed, as if time had stopped.

But the day it was finished he started crying. His wife could not believe it. She said, “You are crying? You should be happy, you should dance! The work is complete.”

Gibbon said, “The work is complete. Now what is left for me? My life is complete.” And within five years he aged so much, and by the seventh year he was gone.

It is said that Vincent van Gogh, the great Dutch painter, committed suicide when he felt that he had done the perfect painting. It is possible. If the painter feels the perfect has happened, then there is no point in living. The creator lives to create. The singer lives to sing, the dancer lives to dance, the lover lives to love, the tree lives to bloom - if it has bloomed and the perfect flowers have come, then what is the point of prolonging a futile, meaningless existence?

Your question is significant. You ask, “Is it possible to paint a totally satisfying painting?” Yes and no. Yes, while you are painting it will be totally satisfying. And no, once it is over you will feel great sadness. But that sadness is also creative, because it is only out of that sadness you will again start moving towards the sunlit peaks.

And in this life nothing really is ever perfect or can ever be perfect. You will be surprised that I believe in an imperfect God. You will be shocked, because at least all the religions are agreed on one thing, that God is perfect. I don’t agree, because if God is perfect then Friedrich Nietzsche is right that God is dead. God is perfectly imperfect - that much I can say: hence growth, evolution; hence movement. It is always, always coming closer and closer to perfection, but it is never perfect and it will never be perfect.


Nothing ever is perfect. In fact imperfection has a beauty of its own, because imperfection has a life. Whenever something is perfect - just think, contemplate - whenever something is really perfect, life will disappear from it.
Life can exist only if something is still imperfect and has to be perfected. Life is the effort to perfect the imperfect. Life is the ambition to make the ugly beautiful. Something of imperfection is a must for life to exist, for life to go on growing and flowing.

Nothing ever is perfect. Or if something any time happens to be perfect. In the East we have a right vision of it: we say whenever a person becomes perfect, that is his last life. The scriptures give different reasons for it; my reason is totally different. I say yes, when Buddha is perfect he will not come back, because perfection means life is no longer possible. He will disappear into the cosmos.

Rabindranath, a great Indian poet and mystic, prayed his last prayer to God, “Send me back. Remember, I am not perfect. Send me back. Your world was too beautiful and you gave me such a precious life. And I don’t want to disappear yet, I have yet to sing many songs, I have yet to paint many paintings, there is yet much in my heart which needs to bloom. Send me back, I am not perfect! Send me back.”

That was his last prayer; he died praying this way. It is one of the most beautiful prayers and one of the most beautiful ways to die. How can one thank existence more than this? “Your world was beautiful, I loved your world; I was not worthy of it but you made me. I am not worthy to be sent back, but still, your compassion is great. At least one time more, send me back.”

Life remains growing. Nothing ever is perfect - or whenever something is perfect it disappears, it goes into annihilation. The Buddhist word is nirvana. Nirvana means annihilation, nirvana means cessation. Literally, nirvana means “blowing out the candle.” Just as you blow out a candle and suddenly the light is gone, gone forever, has disappeared into nothingness - that is nirvana. All the buddhas say whosoever becomes perfect moves into nirvana, goes into annihilation.

Don’t hanker for a perfect painting otherwise the painter will die. And you have yet to sing many songs.

And the painting cannot be perfect, the song and the dance cannot be perfect, for a few more reasons. One: when you visualize it in the deepest core of your heart, it is a totally different thing. When you start painting it, you are translating it from the subtle to the gross. In that very transforming, in that very translation, much is lost.

Hence no painter ever feels satisfied when he finishes his painting. It is not the same as that which he wanted to paint - similar, but not the same. He has some vision to compare, it has fallen very short. Hence he starts another painting.

Rabindranath again has to be remembered. He wrote six thousand songs - seems to be the greatest poet the world has ever known - and each song is a beauty. But when he was dying he was crying, he was saying to God, “The song that I wanted to sing, I have not sung yet.”

An old friend was by the side of the bed, and the old friend said, “What are you saying? Have you gone mad? You have sung six thousand songs. In Europe, Shelley is thought to be one of the greatest poets. He has sung only two thousand songs. You have defeated him three times. You should be happy and contented!”

Rabindranath opened his tear-filled eyes and he said, “I am not. Yes, six thousand songs I have sung, but you don’t know the inner story. The inner story is that I wanted to sing only one song! But because it never was possible. I tried once, failed; I tried again, I failed. Six thousand times I have failed. Those are all efforts, and I am not satisfied with any of them. That which I wanted to sing is still unsung.” In fact nobody can sing it.

Buddha used to declare in every town, wherever he would go, “Please don’t ask eleven questions.” In those eleven questions, all important questions were included: godliness, soul, death, life, truth, everything important was included. Why? “Because,” he would say, “they cannot be answered. Not that I don’t know, but to bring them to words is impossible.”

There was an ancient mysterious wall which stood at the edge of a village and whenever anyone climbed the wall to look onto the other side, instead of coming back he smiled and jumped to the other side, never to return. The inhabitants of the village became curious as to what could draw these beings to the other side of the wall. After all, their village had all the necessities of living a comfortable life.
They made an arrangement where they tied a person’s feet, so when he looked over and wished to jump, they could pull him back.

The next time someone tried to climb the wall to see what was on the other side, they chained his feet so he could not go over. He looked on the other side and was delighted at what he saw, and smiled. Those standing below grew curious to question him and pulled him back. To their great disappointment he had lost the power of speech.

Those who have seen cannot say. That which has been seen cannot be painted, cannot be reduced to words. But still each one has to give it a try. The world goes on becoming more and more beautiful because of these efforts. The world is beautiful because of the six thousand songs that Rabindranath tried, and failed to sing the song that he wanted. Those six thousand failures have made the world far more beautiful than it ever was. It will not be the same world again, those six thousand songs will go on resonating.

So go on painting, go on creating. Yet I tell you again and again, you will never be satisfied. I bless you that you should never be satisfied, but let each moment of your creativity be a great contentment. But when something is finished, move ahead. You have infinite capacities to create; you are unlimited, you don’t have any limits to your potential. You are not aware what you can do, and you will never be aware unless you do it!

Hence the greatest creators are aware how poor has been their creation, because they become aware, more and more aware, how much more is possible. The ordinary person who has never created anything is not aware what he can do. There is no other way to know what you can do unless you do it. And while doing it you can see that what you wanted to do, what was very clear in your inner world, has become very dim and ordinary when it has been brought to the outer.

You will try again. Each effort will become better and better and better, more and more perfect, but never perfect.


-Osho
The Book of Wisdom
Ghanshyam Savani
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat)

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ghanshyam Savani » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:53 pm

Somebody asked Pablo Picasso, “What is the purpose of your paintings?” and he said, “Why don’t you go in the garden and ask the roseflower, ‘What is your purpose?’ Why don’t you go to a bird singing: ‘What is the purpose?’ Why don’t you ask the sun and the moon? Why do you bother me? If the rose can bloom without any purpose, why can’t I paint a picture? I enjoy painting, and that’s all.”

But we have a very mediocre mind; we always think in terms of purpose. Purpose means “business”; purpose means “I am doing this for that.” And because of this purposive obsession, you never do anything totally - you cannot - because you are not interested in doing it for its own sake. Purpose is there.

You are painting to sell it in the market to earn money. Then your painting cannot be great, cannot be, because you will not be lost while you are painting. Continuously you will be thinking, “How much am I going to fetch? Will it be possible to sell it, and who are the potential buyers? Whom should I approach; how should I advertise?” And you are painting! Your painting may be a technically well-performed job, but it will not be art. You are not an artist; you are not a creator.

The real artist disappears into his art. While he is painting he is not: he is in a state of fana, he is absent. The painting is happening on its own. He is not doing it; he is not a doer. Then great works arise. That is a secondary thing, whether it is sold in the market or not; that is not the purpose; that was not in the mind of the painter. Also he needs bread and butter, and he will sell it; that is a thing apart. That was not the purpose of the painting; he was not thinking of bread and butter while he was painting it. If he was thinking, then he is not a painter, then he is just a businessman.

Remember the difference between a technician and an artist: the technician is one who works with some goal in his vision, and the artist is one who has no other goal - art for art’s sake.

-Osho
The Secret
Ghanshyam Savani
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat)

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ganesh H Shankar » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:13 pm

I think, in one other obvious way it differs from painting which we ignored/ignore in our pursuit of creativity is a photograph's ability to portray the apparent truth beyond our opinions.

natures_code.jpg
natures_code.jpg (1.92 MiB) Viewed 213 times
Ganesh H. Shankar
Wishing you best light,

Image
Personal Websites Fine Art Nature Photography
Facebook Pages Ganesh H. Shankar | Fine Art Nature Photography | Art Of Life
User avatar
Ganesh H Shankar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Bangalore, INDIA

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:53 am

@ Ganesh,

It's very true. We have taken this truth so much for granted that we often fail to see beyond the scene/moment. And for the same reason, many times I have felt that photographs lie or mislead us! You may find many examples especially in photo-journalism; they very well know 'how to lie'!

Well, that was a bad side. Here are examples showing another dimension, making us think twice n increasing the interestingness! ..

ImageUntitled by vineet vohra, on Flickr

ImageUntitled by vineet vohra, on Flickr
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Ganesh H Shankar » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:20 pm

I agree with you, Nevil, about the ability of an image to lie, sometimes even without physical manipulation. A single image may not reveal the truth. The point I was trying to make was photographs at times can portray truth beyond opinions. That goes back to the discussion about whether truth exists beyond human perception. I think it does!
Ganesh H. Shankar
Wishing you best light,

Image
Personal Websites Fine Art Nature Photography
Facebook Pages Ganesh H. Shankar | Fine Art Nature Photography | Art Of Life
User avatar
Ganesh H Shankar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Bangalore, INDIA

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:33 pm

Yes, Ganesh. I agree with your point n seeing 'the truth beyond human perception!!!' :o
Regards.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Adithya Biloor » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:30 am

Hi,

This makes me think that the fundamental difference between the traditional art forms and a photograph is, a photograph is not a 'creation'. A painting emerges from a white sheet .i.e. it is a process of inclusion where as a photograph fades/abandons what it is there and is a process of exclusion.
Yes, at its core it's a medium which shows the truth beyond our opinion. However when the process of framing itself is a human opinion, we need to be careful of it. As Nevil showed "the truth " may not always be a "truth".

Adithya
Regards,
Adithya Biloor
www.lensandtales.com
Adithya Biloor
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:17 pm
Location: Biloor, Nittor -p,Hosanagar-Tq, Shivamogga -Dis, Karnataka,India

Re: Painting vs. Photograph

Postby Nevil Zaveri » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:21 pm

@ Adithya,

I believe, photograph is a 'creation' too. The same scene/subject clicked with different compo, dof n moment may convey different message. In fact, in other arts there is a scope of practice n correction; whereas in photography, many times there is no 2nd chance to convey 'the same'. If not more, photography is no less creative than other arts .. now just imagine post-processing possibilities too.
User avatar
Nevil Zaveri
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: navsari









Return to Discussions on Creative & Fine Art Nature Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron