Quote from: c47man on May 06, 2011, 02:31:56 PMphotorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.Sorry for the bump, but I just had to correct this, because it hurts me to see it unrefuted:http://pwlawrence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/waterhouse_1024-769.jpghttp://arttattler.com/Images/Europe/England/London/Royal%20Academy%20of%20Arts/J.W.%20Waterhouse/St.-Cecilia.jpghttp://attachments.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1085377&stc=1&d=1287524388http://allart.biz/up/photos/album/W-X-Y-Z/John%20William%20Waterhouse/john_william_waterhouse_16_saint_eulalia.jpg
photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings?
Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 07:03:27 PMI'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings? In the last decade or so, probably not, but at the time they were painted and for many decades afterwards they were far more 'realistic' than contemporary photographs, and for a significant period after that I would say they were at least on a par. I personally think that Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott looks a lot more like a stylised photograph than it does a painting.
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 02, 2011, 07:14:45 PMQuote from: markjo on June 02, 2011, 07:03:27 PMI'm sorry, but are you suggesting that these paintings could possibly be mistaken for anything but paintings? In the last decade or so, probably not, but at the time they were painted and for many decades afterwards they were far more 'realistic' than contemporary photographs, and for a significant period after that I would say they were at least on a par. I personally think that Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott looks a lot more like a stylised photograph than it does a painting.Granted, that is a beautiful painting, but remember that it measures 153 cm ? 200 cm (60 in ? 79 in). You would be surprised at how much different the full sized original looks compared to a rather smallish reproduction.