1990osu said:
zombie84 said:
The reason being, once photography came around there was no point.
*sigh* [(TM) warbler]
zombie84 said:
Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price?
Because the painting is objectively better? Because it has texture and it looks differently depending on the lighting in the room because different light reflects off of the texture in different ways- you don't just get one sterile, perfect experience that is standardized for everyone. Just like movies on film-every showing is a unique event that requires people in the audience, a skilled projectionist, etc. If there's considered no difference between paintings and photos, why go to an art gallery at all? If there's considered no difference between viewing film and watching the digital movie on your cell phone, why go to the movies at all? Isn't this a massive mistake?
Digital cell-phone? Sure. But the difference between a high end digital motion picture camera and a 35mm motion picture camera is practically non-existant. Usually if there is a difference, it's a deliberate one--digital could look the same as film, and often does, but when it doesn't it's because they don't care to replicate that look exactly. High-end digital looks truer to real life in 2012, and while in the past we resisted that because it looked "different" than film, now that we are used to it, it is being used more openly.
It's a false analogy to compare oil paints to photography. Movies are photography, it's the exact same device and quality between your 1980s photos of the family vacation and a Hollywood movie at the time. But no film, anywhere has looked like an oil painting. Even Waking Life. Let's compare apples to apples. It's like saying, does Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo look like the original swedish version of the film? Because that was shot on 35mm film. There are stylistic decisions. But it would be idiotic to say the Swedish version looks like an oil painting and Fincher's looks like a digital still. Quite the opposite--I would say Fincher's was more painterly and beautiful. These are the types of emotional-based arguments that don't make much sense and only serve to underline the point I am making. Digital looks like film if you want it to, but increasingly people have been making the choice to abandon that option and instead make it look more realistic--and also just as beautiful.