How do you create a painting meant to be showcased online?
In this study I explore ways to create and display paintings on a digital platform. To question of digitalization of painting, we will focus on the materiality of paint and its translation into the digital realm.
Question of texture, material, a sensory experience with paint, layers; what is the experience of the paint when it becomes digitalized?
PHASE I
Create two paintings: one that is meant only to be seen digitally and one that is untranslatable digitally.
On a flat surface, paint a beam of light/flash.
Live, the light from the light source in the room is reflected into the eyes of the onlooker. However, after digitalization, one would be looking directly at the light source and not the reflection of it, thus intensifying the effect of the image (haze of the beam of light)
The digital is enhancing the painting, it is adding a layer to it, something that cannot be achieved with paint.
This painting is meant specifically to be seen on a screen.
Nevertheless, the materiality of the paint is lost. It almost does not matter if the painting is material paint or a digital illustration.
Live, the light from the light source in the room is reflected into the eyes of the onlooker. However, after digitalization, one would be looking directly at the light source and not the reflection of it, thus intensifying the effect of the image (haze of the beam of light)
The digital is enhancing the painting, it is adding a layer to it, something that cannot be achieved with paint.
This painting is meant specifically to be seen on a screen.
Nevertheless, the materiality of the paint is lost. It almost does not matter if the painting is material paint or a digital illustration.
On a textured/bumpy surface, light it from one side and paint the shadows created by the canvas on the canvas.
Live, one has to interact with the painting to perceive it in its various configurations (touch, manipulate, light in various ways). Digitally, one cannot interact with the painting, what they see depends on the image provided to them. I wouldn’t say the painting cannot be read on a screen, but it loses its main characteristic. The digital takes away a layer from it, something that cannot be achieved digitally.
The painting cannot be translated digitally as the digital gives it a different reading.
Live, one has to interact with the painting to perceive it in its various configurations (touch, manipulate, light in various ways). Digitally, one cannot interact with the painting, what they see depends on the image provided to them. I wouldn’t say the painting cannot be read on a screen, but it loses its main characteristic. The digital takes away a layer from it, something that cannot be achieved digitally.
The painting cannot be translated digitally as the digital gives it a different reading.
Phase II
The last two paintings fail to conserve the materiality of the paint when showcased on a screen.
How to create a painting that is going to be showcased digitally while preserving its materiality?
Create a painting then photograph it in different environments (with flash, in the dark, place a plastic sheet in between, etc).
This painting can be seen individually live or virtually without one of the versions cancelling the other.
Live, the painting invites the viewer to move around it, interact with it, in order to perceive it: how the light reflects, the different layers, the texture.
Digitally, the materiality of the painting is preserved through the flash, the reflections, and the plastic separator, elements that keep the viewer conscious of the photographic medium. We are looking not at the painting but at the photograph of the painting.
The experience of it digitally is different from the experience of it live. One does not replace the other.
Each version is “independent” and does not need the other to be showcased.
This painting can be seen individually live or virtually without one of the versions cancelling the other.
Live, the painting invites the viewer to move around it, interact with it, in order to perceive it: how the light reflects, the different layers, the texture.
Digitally, the materiality of the painting is preserved through the flash, the reflections, and the plastic separator, elements that keep the viewer conscious of the photographic medium. We are looking not at the painting but at the photograph of the painting.
The experience of it digitally is different from the experience of it live. One does not replace the other.
Each version is “independent” and does not need the other to be showcased.
This painting is based on an idea that Matisse discusses in Notes for a Painter : “Composition, the aim of which should be expression, is modified according to the surface to be covered”. Matisse claims that there is a link between painting and format, thus a painting made to be seen live on the canvas itself is not the same painting made to be seen on screen.
Create a painting suitable for the surface it is painted on. Then, edit the painting on the computer so that it becomes suitable for its new (digital) format.
The material painting and the digital one can be seen separately as "independent". However, seeing them together would offer another way to understand them them. When seen together the viewer’s focus is shifted. The audience becomes aware of the translation from one medium to the other.
Create a painting suitable for the surface it is painted on. Then, edit the painting on the computer so that it becomes suitable for its new (digital) format.
The material painting and the digital one can be seen separately as "independent". However, seeing them together would offer another way to understand them them. When seen together the viewer’s focus is shifted. The audience becomes aware of the translation from one medium to the other.
Create a painting that uses the digital during the process of its creation. Reflexivity of the painting.
Go back and forth between the physical and the digital to create the painting.
Paint then burn center of canvas, take a picture of it, modify it digitally, insert an object in the created hole, then paint what is seen digitally, repeat until painting is complete.
I noticed that both painting and photography flatten objects. Furthermore, painting “dilutes” the object, transposing it to the material of paint, but also, it “materializes” digital information and light, transposing it as well to the material of paint.
Painting becomes therefore a middle ground, a meeting point between total objecthood and total immateriality
Object>transposes to>Paint<transposes<Digital
This painting creates a world where the physical and the digital worlds collide.
Go back and forth between the physical and the digital to create the painting.
Paint then burn center of canvas, take a picture of it, modify it digitally, insert an object in the created hole, then paint what is seen digitally, repeat until painting is complete.
I noticed that both painting and photography flatten objects. Furthermore, painting “dilutes” the object, transposing it to the material of paint, but also, it “materializes” digital information and light, transposing it as well to the material of paint.
Painting becomes therefore a middle ground, a meeting point between total objecthood and total immateriality
Object>transposes to>Paint<transposes<Digital
This painting creates a world where the physical and the digital worlds collide.
Create a painting. Create a website simulation where the audience has the ability to apply color filters on that painting, changing the brightness, contrast, hue and saturation.
This painting is not made to be seen live but only virtually, however, the medium of paint is necessary to the process.
The viewer is not able to see the live version, so called “original” version. Its existence is important because the audience wonders what it looks like, which of the endless configuration is the “true one”, which is information they cannot access resulting in frustration.
The viewer gains agency (te ability to control the colors of the painting) for the price of knowledge.
All the configurations become equally “authentic” or even equally "reproductions".
This painting is not made to be seen live but only virtually, however, the medium of paint is necessary to the process.
The viewer is not able to see the live version, so called “original” version. Its existence is important because the audience wonders what it looks like, which of the endless configuration is the “true one”, which is information they cannot access resulting in frustration.
The viewer gains agency (te ability to control the colors of the painting) for the price of knowledge.
All the configurations become equally “authentic” or even equally "reproductions".
Phase III
Explore what influences our reading of a painting.
Display a painting digitally and focus on the environment the painting is perceived in. What can/can’t I control on a website? sound, smell, temperature...
The environment the painting is placed in influences our perception of it.
Making the viewer aware of how their surroundings, and where they stand influences how and what they see.
What I notice in this is that I always end up specializing painting, however isn’t painting within itself special?
The environment the painting is placed in influences our perception of it.
Making the viewer aware of how their surroundings, and where they stand influences how and what they see.
What I notice in this is that I always end up specializing painting, however isn’t painting within itself special?
The viewer constructs, or actually reconstructs, the painting by choosing words (Lava, Pain, Family, Love). If chosen in any order the result would still be the same painting. However, what changes are the different combinations possible before reaching the end (the end being the culmination of all the elements). Also, the order chosen would make one make connections between different parts of the painting and understand it differently by trying it in another order.
I thought of this to create a digital painting, by allowing the viewer to go through the process of “what do I paint first” which is something I always think of when facing a blank canvas.
Through the process of painting, the mind reacts to what is already on canvas, but in this website I am proposing it is not the case. Perception of the painting may change but the composition stays the same.
This makes me question the stillness of painting. When compared with photography painting is almost like a long exposure (not exactly the same) where it does not capture the instant, but rather compresses/overlays a longer period of time into a frame. If things change within this time period, the image changes. However, in photography, the whole surface is exposed at the same time, while in painting it’s more of a “build up”.
I thought of this to create a digital painting, by allowing the viewer to go through the process of “what do I paint first” which is something I always think of when facing a blank canvas.
Through the process of painting, the mind reacts to what is already on canvas, but in this website I am proposing it is not the case. Perception of the painting may change but the composition stays the same.
This makes me question the stillness of painting. When compared with photography painting is almost like a long exposure (not exactly the same) where it does not capture the instant, but rather compresses/overlays a longer period of time into a frame. If things change within this time period, the image changes. However, in photography, the whole surface is exposed at the same time, while in painting it’s more of a “build up”.
Get my sister Karine to apply what I want on the canvas. I direct her, tell her what to paint, how to paint, where to paint. She does not see any reference image or object; she follows my directions and words. I even tell her to correct the painting and keep editing it until I am pleased with the result. She does not take any decision in color/composition, I am always telling her what to do.
I thought of doing that experiment to help me think of machine generated images, whether prints (silkscreen, intaglio, etc.) or computer/algorithm generated images.
Thinking about originality and reproducibility. How does my process differ from me telling photoshop to replace red with green? What role is my sister playing then? The artisan, the machine, the tool? Till what extent can I correct her and tell her to fix the painting? Machines and digital tools are more precise and way faster.
This makes me think of the role of the human being in painting. What I care about is the process carried by the person to paint, and not only the final artifact. So do define painting as the process of sublimation?
I thought of doing that experiment to help me think of machine generated images, whether prints (silkscreen, intaglio, etc.) or computer/algorithm generated images.
Thinking about originality and reproducibility. How does my process differ from me telling photoshop to replace red with green? What role is my sister playing then? The artisan, the machine, the tool? Till what extent can I correct her and tell her to fix the painting? Machines and digital tools are more precise and way faster.
This makes me think of the role of the human being in painting. What I care about is the process carried by the person to paint, and not only the final artifact. So do define painting as the process of sublimation?
