Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

You can send an email to [email protected] if you have questions about how to use this forum.

What do you think about the future of (oil)painting made on canvas?

edited August 2016 in General Discussion
Hi

(sorry for the grammar, not a native English speaker, neither a good writer :)

I have a parasite idea since I started to paint, which doesn't want to leave me since... 
Bare in mind I don't have any artist friends and I paint in my solitude as a hobby, so my insight is vastly limited in this area.

I am wondering how can painting compete against modern visual arts.
I love painting but I think  sometimes other art forms such as movie cinematography
are providing a much richer experience. Or computer generated images can create much richer pictures.
The only thing that painting excels is the natural paint in the canvas and that it looks better than a print (am I wrong?). 

I would like to get an idea of what do you think about the future of (oil)painting made in canvas?

As I see during centuries painting was one of the predominant form of visual arts, however nowadays I would say movies, photography, comic books and digital art are much more influential. (maybe I see that way because I follow those things more)

From the all the painting styles probably street art that resonates with me the most, however I wouldn't do it because of the ephemerality of the walls. I am not talking about the colorful random letters, but the images that pop up in random corners and makes you stop and analyze the content and meaning.
For example: Banksy 
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/15-life-lessons-from-banksy-street-art-that-will-leave-you-lost-for-words.html

Somehow I feel like painting usually lacks the entertaining factor that other visual arts carry, and they are only there to fill a gap in the wall. 


In your opinion, how painting fits among this other art forms?
What that makes it special?




What do you think about hyper-realism in painting?
In one DMP video was quoted that: Painting is not for smelling, it is for seeing.  (I tend to get some paint on my nose :P ).
I think this aspect of my problem wouldn't resonate with most of you... I usually try to be very accurate in my paintings, brushing in all the details (I must say, not very successfully)... this is very time consuming process..
.. so then I go to check what one could do with a 3D software in around 30 mins, and I get depressed. 

This takes less than 30 mins actually... this battle is unwinnable :/ 

 




Once I tried to spice things up...
As a concept, once I started to model my painting in a 3D software (due to lack of time and will, I didn't finish but got some nice results). I wanted to create an environment where a modeled version of the painting is projected on the wall or displayed on a screen, and it was made interactive with a motion sensor.

In my demo I created (link bellow):
  • a scene where  the content of a movie poster (2D) can be seen from different angles on a LCD screen
  • a woman that is displayed on a screen and always looks at the viewer.
So I really liked this idea, but it wasn't painting anymore... more like an art installation with some tech involved. 
And in my opinion by relying heavily on technology the art-piece can lose its timelessness more easily than an oil painting. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyydPwmCf9c 





Man, this got long... (and incohesive)





PS: I still don't understand what's up with Mona Lisa
(beyond that in Spanish means: smooth female monkey ...I think... I am not a Spanish pro) 




Comments

  • From a purely commercial viewpoint, there is only one true real painting done by the artist. Even painting haystaks multiple times, each canvas different, and one of a kind. A canvas can be owned and increase in value. Photos can be endlessly reprinted and are all equally the work of the artist. There might be an original, but its exactly like the copies. This isn't true of oil painting. There are no billion dollar photos.
    KaustavPadambanJessemichalis
  • Artist aren't going anywhere, (even the painting on canvas kind) from the child to the elderly, people love to create, explore and discover. The tools they choose to use along that journey may vary.... But still endures.... we also love our own history of creativity.... We love to know what different generations and eras of people used, how they used it.... We like to try it it and see what else we can do with it... And we love endless possibilities.....so then really your question becomes what will be the future "market" ..buyers are fickle and swayed by commercialism...personally it doesn't change what I like to use for my creative outlet.
    PadambanJesse
  • edited August 2016
    Also I have not had the pleasure to view the Mona Lisa personally but my sister has... She said surprisingly it's a small painting ( smaller than she was expecting) but what struck her as most beautiful about it was not Mona but the back ground scene... She said its stunning and from photographs you can never truly appreciate how beautiful the painting actually is. ;)

    Also the title Mona Lisa, Mona meaning Ma Donna translated My Lady or madam in English 

    KaustavPadamban
  • edited August 2016
    As long as human beings survive, there will be artistic vision; creation will not be mass produced; good work will continue to be unique and valued.

    There has been enormous technological advancement since 19th century. But number of painters has but increased everyday. Photography did not replace painting in 19th century, it helped to usher a new era of painting. Modernism of 20th century helped artists to go to futuristic directions. In that age of invention and innovation artists became more spiritual. Walking on the road to enlightenment became easier with the advent of technological advancement!

    Today, software and digital innovation so far did not replace painting but is used like a helping hand, another tool previously unavailable to artists. Therefore, digital innovation will not replace paints and brushes, it will help to produce more advanced brushes, paints and new artistic visions.

    Today's problem is different. It is not technological innovation. Quality of artwork went down due to commercialization in all aspects of life. Artists look to established formulae to produce formulaic artwork. Thus originality and creativity are compromised. Paintings became mass produced for selling purpose only. However, there is a growing tendency to go back to the old school visual arts to get away from formulaic work and create something original. Everyone in this forum knows how we use digital technology to see better. New artists will look back with new technology to create something new.

    Just think about the difference between a plastic chair and a master built handcrafted one. You will know the difference.

    Padamban
  • One other angle on this is that at some point in the future technology will enable people to virtually oil paint in 3D space. They will recreate the experience holographically. So at that point the only advantage to painting holographically might be multiple levels of undo. And virtual paintings will lack the actual physical trace of the artist. It's the humanity of oil painting which people consciously or unconsciously love more than anything else - after the beauty of the work itself, of course!
    Padamban
Sign In or Register to comment.