Out of one’s field
Our photographer looks at some paintings.
Our photographer visited the National Gallery of Art last week. There is nothing surprising in that; the NGA is a wonderful thing to have within Metro distance, and we all want to visit more often than our schedule allows. This visit was prompted by a book.
He feels he understands the phenomenon of color from a scientific point of view, and indeed (along with our astronomer) wrote the “Capturing Color” essay. Photography, even black-and-white, requires some understanding of how color works. But he came upon a book on the subject, not too long, written by an artist (a painter) and became curious about this different point of view.
There was familiar background and some ideas he’d met before, then a system of classification that made sense. Further ideas seemed plausible, though in need of more illustration, and some that appeared contradictory. Well, art is often apparent contradiction. All our consultants are wary of making criticisms in areas outside their expertise. So our photographer went to the art museum to look at paintings and try out these new ideas.
As far as that went, his visit was incompletely successful. No doubt real artists spend years studying color and experimenting; a few hours looking at a few paintings can do no more than suggest some questions. But it did leave him with greatly increased respect for painters. Not only must they set up their palette, choosing base colors and mixing them; they must decide which to use where, a matter inextricably linked with the overall composition. The greater freedom painters have to arrange their subject matter is one side of the coin; the greater skill they must have to do it well is the other. The fact that some pigments are rare or costly has an invisible, but pervasive influence; there are also conventions and styles, in coloring as in other things. These effects must be particularly strong as one goes farther into the past. An early Renaissance painter worked within very narrow practical restrictions, at least compared with today or even a century or two ago.
And yet, the masters could do wonderful things. Our photographer spent most of his time at an exhibition of Michel Suttow’s work, a painter he’d never heard of. (Do see it if you’re in the Washington DC area; it’s in place until mid-May.) The Estonian artist managed a level of realism and expression that was wonderful to see. . . No doubt there are technical artist terms that describe his work much more precisely and correctly. We will satisfy outselves with looking at the pictures.
