Leonardo Sfumato

V3

Hmm, let’s see, where was I, oh yes, just getting up to the New Age of when recording light in the form of a photograph {daguerreotype} was becoming commonplace, the time when one could examine, more or less, what the mind set was in regard to the artistic use of these newfangled contraptions. Luckily Van Deren Coke took the time to consider the mindset of Eugene Delacroix {1860}….on page 9 {same book, Painter & the Photograph} we read from the Delacroix {1853} “let a man of genius make use of the Daguerreotype as it should be used, and he will raise himself to a height that we do not know” and also “the Daguerreotype is more than a tracing, it is the mirror of the object. Certain details almost always overlooked in drawing from nature here take on characteristic importance and thus introduce the artist to complete knowledge of construction as light and shade are found in their true character”. And also on the same page from Delacroix {1854}… “how I regret that such a wonderful invention arrived so late, I mean as far as I am concerned! The possibility of studying such results would have had an influence on me which I can only imagine by the usefulness which they still have for me, even with the little time that I can give to serious study. They are palpable demonstrations of the free design of nature, of which we have hitherto had only very imperfect ideas”. The same book goes on to mention the likelihood of Jean A.D. Ingres and the use of photographs for he {Ingres} is quoted saying…. “this is the exactitude that I would like to achieve” while also H. Gernsheim noted of Ingres work “La Source”, that it is directly related to Nadar’s 1856 photograph of Christine Roux. And on page 12, same book, we read from Van Deren Coke…”it is not surprising to find that the mid-19th century champion of Realism Gustave Corbet also turn to the camera for studies of nudes”. For it is noted that Corbet requested…”that photograph of the nude woman I spoke to you about. She will stand behind my chair in the middle of the picture”, in reference to his efforts to start the painting, “Allegorie Reelle”. As you can see, whether the reality was projected by way of a Pinhole Camera or Camera Obscura for a fleeting moment or whether the reality was recorded as light in a photograph, the camera image has been looked on throughout history favorably by artists who have any affinity to Realism. There will always be the lazy brained bystander historian/writer whose half-baked sophistry will sound reasonable enough to, at times, deterre the serious Realist from admitting to his use of the Camera Image and some of these naysayers {early Frederick Ross-types} are quoted in the same book, namely M.A. Dwight, 1856, from her book “Introduction to the Study of Art” who is quoted…”it is one thing to copy nature, and quite another to compose a picture according to the rules of imitative art founded upon the laws of nature”. Now this bit of sophistry sounds oh so, almost plausible, let’s say…. but consider….are the “laws of nature” really to be found in the guesstimations and approximations and eyeballing of any artist attempting Realism, who is independent of any contrivance at all but his eyes and a brush or pencil? Not a chance for even the best would be advanced cartoonists for the “laws of nature” are reflected in the Camera Image as seen in a Pinhole Camera or in photograph and not human guesstimations relative to re-creating the fleeting nature of human emotion or the shading of muscular realities existing in nature, rather than as reinvented on the bases of speculation and guesswork. You see, these numbskulls like to degrade any use of any Camera Image by suggesting,

oh so high on their Throne of Sophistry,

that the use of the Camera Image by an artist is the equivalent of being a “copyist”.

Hmmm, once again, sounds plausible, but consider again the half-baked dimwitted nature of this comment.

Is Leonardo da Vinci a copyist

when he traced reality by way of the Camera?

Not really, because in their naysaying eyes, Da Vinci was not even up to par with “copyists” because he mindlessly traced the projected Camera Image and would really be regarded as a subhuman automatonic species which just mechanically traces reality with never the need to even make any judgment calls as even a “copyist” would need to continuously be required to do.

Is a Pencil a Camera,

hardly, then how can you make a “copy” in a different medium? If a singer sings the words of a song another has already sang, is she a “copyist”, hardly,

but these naysayers would have to say any singer who sings any song from the past which has already been sung, are all, everyone of them, definitely “copyists”, for admittedly not only are they repeating the same words over & over {copying}, they are doing so in the same medium {voice versus voice} making them in the naysayers mind, obviously “Copyists”.

Of course this logic of the naysayers is completely nonsensical, especially relative to the artists use of the Camera Image, simply because, the pencil {or paint} versus chemicals in a tray {photography} are different mediums and therefore cannot in any reality be considered a “copy”. Now if you take a camera and photograph a photograph, that is a copy, same medium transference, grow a brain and figure it out all you on your grandeur delusions of half-baked sophistry!