53
A very low-resolution image is probably way harder for a painter to convincingly replicate than a pristine HD image of the same scene
(self.showerthoughts)
In computational terms, a low resolution version of an image is almost by definition 'simpler', with fewer colours and details intact, but it seems like it would be much harder to do a convincing 1:1 replication of it in a painting compared to recreating a 'clean' HD version.
Or am I way off the mark? ๐ I'm not a painter, obviously. Seems like getting all of those weird JPEG artefacts right would be something of a novel skill for a traditional painter (or even a digital painter, for that matter).
Painters do not copy stuff.
It can't be done. Like a photo, a painting only has access to a very limited range of values (you can't paint sunlight at 2000w/mยฒ for example) so the whole idea of an artist is "copying" is wrong, albeit widespread.
You convey, with the help of how the brain interprets things (like a circle with a bent line and two dots can be a happy face, think about that!) that is what artists do.
The impressionists were the masters of it, and you're flabbergasted by their paintings, photos of them way less because photos are subject to similar problems...
Welcome to the wonderful world of art and paint!
I just started messing around with paints. I sectioned a canvas out into a grid and it was difficult to get exact straight lines. Not sure if that has anything to do with what op was talking about but it seemed harder in that way, to get "pixel perfect" looking lines
I wonder if the surface of a canvas is just too irregular. It might be different if you were painting a sheet of glass.
Yeah good call thanks, maybe I'll experiment with like fancy paper or wood instead.