Tilt-shift refers (here) to the popular method of artificially making a seeming very shallow depth-of-field in images, which gives the impression that the landscapes are very tiny, because you do get that effect when you photograph up very close. You can do it when photographing with large cameras which can tilt the lens. You can even do it in Photoshop to already existing photos. And to add insult to injury, even to paintings!
I feel a deep connection with ol' Vincent, so I'm not sure what to think of this, to be honest. :-)
Update:
Sam said:
This reinterpretation brought me into action: I thought about the original, I looked for it, and I now have a different view. That's great.
And here's something else that's great: Picasso's Guernica rendered in 3D.
Have you seen the original? I've stood in front of it and looked at it for a long time in Madrid's Reina Sofia museum. It's very, very impressive and watching this 3D rendering has only deepened my feelings for it.
15 comments:
I for one don't think it's fair game to do that with paintings, because it's disrespecting someone else's art. "Derivative work" aside, my feeling's always been that one ought to let other peoples' art stand as they made it. IOW, don't use Beatles songs for Nike shoe commercials, don't add Reagan to Mount Rushmore (which is after all a work of sculpture), and don't do such as this to VvG's paintings....
Mike J.
Well said, Mike - and good on you!
When those 'tilt-shifters' get older,
they'll realize that some of us pay
serious money for prescription eye glasses just to be able to avoid that blurry vision problem. Far from encouraging anyone to try it, we are
doing the opposite in a struggle to keep whatever good sharp vision we have. If Van Gogh was still with us, I think he'd agree with me.
Yes, Mike, well said. There is a very sad lack of respect for great artists' work.
I think I would have come down much harder on this example if it had been done for advertising.
(BTW, folks, I believe Mike J. is the man behind famous site:
http://thurly.net/c1j
... which I warmly recommend.)
Interesting points of view. Personally, I don't see it as being disrespectable. It's just a different interptation of the work of art. Sort of like using Photoshop to alter any picture taken.
A car manufacture might design a specific look, which is often copied. My ex-dentist has a sign in his office that says something like "copying if the finest form of flatery"..or something like that anyway.
To me it seems that tilt-shifting is simply taking a piece of art and looking at it from a different angle, sort of like EOs recent post on Splendid optical illusions.
Not well said at all. It's no different than sampling another artist's music. You may not like it, but...
Lighten up guys..
This was simply a third year art student playing with Photoshop and used Van Gogh's paintings to work with...I'm sure it is not to change his art into new paintings...She could have just as well used any other famous artist's work...such as Dali...or Sargent...or Whistler...
Van Goghs simply worked for her...
disrespectable
hahahahaha
he he wasnt famous and his paintings worth so much nobody would care all, all is vanity
@ Tommy -
I think the phrase you were looking for goes: "Imitation is the finest form of flattery."
Interesting. I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I do think that respect should be paid to art/creative work, and we should honour the artist's intentions; but I think sometimes changes allow us to find new things in art/creative work that we've become accustomed to.
The tilt-shift did make me look at VvG's paintings again, in more detail. Which can't be a bad thing....
There's that too.
I like to think of the arts, creation, whatever, as similar to children. You create them the best you can and help them get going and after a while, hopefully, they get a life of their own and go off in all sorts of different directions and you can no longer claim them to be you own
Why isn't it 'fair'? It's just a reinterpretation of this work.
Actually, I was impressed by the image of the workers in the field, how the figures now look as if they are cut-outs made of cardboard.
It made me stand up and go to my bookshelf, made me pick up my van Gogh picture book and look up the original.
This reinterpretation brought me into action: I thought about the original, I looked for it, and I now have a different view. That's great.
And here's something else that's great: Picasso's Guernica rendered in 3D.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKVCov-XFXw
Have you seen the original? I've stood in front of it and looked at it for a long time in Madrid's Reina Sofia museum. It's very, very impressive and watching this 3D rendering has only deepened my feelings for it.
It's just a reinterpretation of this work.
A cheesy, pointless reinterpretation. It cheapens the original. Messing around with this kind of stuff is the equivalent of rubbing one out.
Post a Comment