The banana seems the most expressive to me. It's an appealing image (so to speak), and offers us an opportunity to appreciate and think about the everyday. The rest of them seem harder to explain. Why make a painting of something if the painting seems to add nothing to the image itself? As craftsmanship and skill, it makes sense and is admirable. I guess the question is more why you'd want to own these, not so much why you'd want to make them.
Why did you choose these ones? What's at stake here for you?
Seems like you like the banana because it is also something that is more susceptible to change (which happens naturally, something that most humans cannot control). So, the banana and the daisy might seem more appealing because they have various forms and stages. And like you said, it is appealing. Perhaps it is appealing because it is in the "correct" form. It is ripe, looks eatable. The daisy looks pickable and give-to-your-momable.
I think it is interesting that you are more curious as to why someone might want to own these, when I am more curious about why someone would want to create images that already exist. Especially if they are existing in a long-term, lasting way, such as the bridge or the waterfall. People buy replicas of these things for various reasons, of course. It is aesthetically appealing, but also, people who purchase these specific items might also possess nostalgic feelings toward it. Perhaps you had your first kiss at the bridge. They are also symbols of popular areas.
The photographs are just as biased and subjective as the paintings. The photograph and painting of the Golden Gate Bridge are very familiar due to the fact that they are set at a vantage point that is typically inhabited by viewers, spectators, and tourists; in a sense, they are the most realistic images featured here because they show the object expressed from a viewpoint that can be shared. Few people ever look at dandelions from that close from that angle, and bananas usually have some setting or context. The Niagara Falls is one of my favorite things to deconstruct, merely because I sat through a lecture about how they've been portrayed over the years and thus have a bit more information as regards them. Basically, the short of it is that neither image above is actually how they look to any real-life spectators that ever manage to visit the site, but are instead abstract exaggerations of them based upon decontextualizing the scale by removing the shore.
Comments 3
The banana seems the most expressive to me. It's an appealing image (so to speak), and offers us an opportunity to appreciate and think about the everyday. The rest of them seem harder to explain. Why make a painting of something if the painting seems to add nothing to the image itself? As craftsmanship and skill, it makes sense and is admirable. I guess the question is more why you'd want to own these, not so much why you'd want to make them.
Why did you choose these ones? What's at stake here for you?
Reply
I think it is interesting that you are more curious as to why someone might want to own these, when I am more curious about why someone would want to create images that already exist. Especially if they are existing in a long-term, lasting way, such as the bridge or the waterfall. People buy replicas of these things for various reasons, of course. It is aesthetically appealing, but also, people who purchase these specific items might also possess nostalgic feelings toward it. Perhaps you had your first kiss at the bridge. They are also symbols of popular areas.
Reply
Hi!
--DiB
Reply
Leave a comment