Photography is a fairly recent tool as a medium of art. The first photograph was made in the early 1800s, and in less than 200 years since, you can say that photography as changed the world. Yet, because of its innate ability to capture a literal representation of a scene, photography has been compared endlessly with older art forms such as painting, drawing and so on.
The purpose of this series is to examine what we mean by a realistic portrayal of a scene. Paintings and drawings often convey a strong emotional content (or the good ones anyway), which combined with great technique leads to a realistic portrayal of a scene. When I say realistic, I mean that the art conveys the true interpretation of a scene by the artist. Literalness is not realism in this sense, as anyone who has seen ho-hum snapshots can tell you.
Painters start with an ease of conveying emotional (or subjective) messages, and may seek to provide tension by increasing realism with greater techniques in painting. Photographers go in the opposite direction- they start with an innate ability to capture a literal representation (something which painters have to train hard their entire lives to do), but seek a way to inject emotional content into their medium.
So the following series dwells on this tension between subjectivity, literalness and realism. As you look at my following pieces, you may want to ask yourself: “Which is more realistic? The following art pieces which use photography and motion to give a painterly feel of motion/serenity, or a snapshot that shows every single detail in a scene?”