![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
When I'm photographing landscapes I like to expose for the sky. I don't want my clouds all wishy washy. I want them to dominate the picture.
Which means that my foregrounds are usually rather dark.
I was browsing through my galleries just now and it suddenly hit me that the Impressionists got it wrong. Nature isn't all red and mauve and green and yellow. In fact She's mostly brown- as in an old master painting.
Constable, Ruysdael, Poussin are closer to the appearance of things than Monet or Van Gogh.
Which isn't at all what the art historians say.
Which means that my foregrounds are usually rather dark.
I was browsing through my galleries just now and it suddenly hit me that the Impressionists got it wrong. Nature isn't all red and mauve and green and yellow. In fact She's mostly brown- as in an old master painting.
Constable, Ruysdael, Poussin are closer to the appearance of things than Monet or Van Gogh.
Which isn't at all what the art historians say.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 11:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 04:28 pm (UTC)As for Van Gogh, if you think he was trying for the reproduction of surface color as we see it, you simply haven't been paying attention. I can't think of a painter who was more brilliant than Van Gogh at his best (and you absolutely have to see the paintings themselves rather than prints to get this), but you've only to look at one of the self-portraits in which he uses skin tones of green or yellow to know he wasn't aiming at faithfully reproducing surface colors. Van Gogh is also a painter who is rather woefully misrepresented by popular media. If you only see "typical" images of irises and starry nights, you don't realize that there wasn't really any such thing as a typical Van Gogh.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: