I like to paint and I like to photograph things. And I sell reproductions of both my watercolor paintings and photographs.
But people sometimes look at my paintings and say something like...."wow, I really thought that was a photograph". I never know quite how I feel about this. Was that a compliment? Does my work just replicate (in paint) what a photo can do better? The painting vs. photography issue is, of course, an old one and "photo-realism" in painting has often been awarded second hand status. Technician vs. artist, etc. And in the new world of digital photography things get even more blurred. With a good camera and minimal photoshop skills you can take a nice photo and then "create" a watercolor painting! Actually, its "easier done than said"!
In spite of all this I'm still interested in the relationship between painting and photography and I've been experimenting lately with this "mixed-media".
Here's an example:
I recently did a watercolor painting of river stones, in black and white tones. I dropped a few "real" partially dried leaves on the painting and then took a photograph of the combination.
Here's the result:
I like how the shadows add color to the b/w painting. I'm working now on adding "real" objects to a watercolor painting of fallen leaves.
This page is where I put stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.... news, photos, an occassional idea, work in process, etc.