Thursday, May 11, 2006
Monet/Behmo... On Paintings and Pictures
The word for it is "strikingly similar," isn't it? So the first image is a Monet, an oil painting, whereas the second is a picture taken in a public garden in Den Haag (The Hague) by Régis (Behmo's his last name, hence the title)... I always thought the pic looked like a Monet but I'd never seen that particular painting. The craziest thing is I'm sure Régis hadn't seen it either when he shot the picture.
Note how the little leaves on the water of the picture look like they're tiny little Monet brush strokes. Both share the same structure with a little path of clear water dividing the shades of trees and both play on the difficulty to see where the water stops and the actual vegetation starts. The pictures adds a layer of leaves at the very front but Monet extends the background with an extra layer of vegetation there so that both depth structures are pretty close... The light, coming from the back of the picture, underlines this depth and creates the same movement in both. And even the colours echo each other, with the same burgundy-like one in the water etc... Amazing.
Now some might say "pfuuu it's totally not the same thing, it's dead easy to shoot a picture, you just press a button, but Monet had to paint every little stroke and spend hours and hours on it, mixing the colours and all." But taking a picture is applying our vision to the world. Yeah they're really cheap now and everybody takes them, millions are produced per day probably, but how many of these are works of art? How many of these show composition? Isn't this one really well structured (cf up there, same structure as Monet), and doesn't it show a sensitivity to nature to be able to see that particular place?
People make scales in the nobility or art, so pictures should be all the way down and oil paintings all the way up, especially portraits. How can you make a scale of artsy stuff when there is no proper definition for "art" and it mostly relies on personnal appreciation and subjectivity? So now my criteria for art is it's got to move me. And being impressed at how skilled the artist was in order to be able to produce an object is being moved, I think. It's only when you walk past the painting or statue or picture and don't see it or think "what's the point?" that you know that this, to you, probably isn't art. But then again that's just my definition.
Actually, works of art can even change categories :p Take Picasso. I used to not like it at all and go "what's the point" but I saw some of his works at the Met and reviewed my appreciation. He was previously associated with a stern "I don't like Picasso" - part of which was probably a little bit provocative, but what I saw by him was really interesting and made me want to see more. Which means it made me want to see through his eyes more...
So what does this Monet/Behmo similarity tell us, other than the fact that paintings and pictures aren't in such a hierarchical position after all? That the two of them share the same mind and Régis is a re-incarnation of Monet? :o That'd be fun... I would have dated the greatest painter of all times! Greatsest painter, in my humble opinion, but that's just because Monet's work is most definitely that which moves me most, which actually overwhelms me... And how could you not when you lose yourself in this myriad of little brush strokes?
here are two others... You can click on the pics to see them bigger. Enjoy! :)
# posted by V @ 1:39 PM 
