Almost every time I have an exhibition, people take me aside and tell me how much one or more images look like paintings. From their tone of voice, they consider that to be a compliment. In the past, I’ve asked them why that thought that, and not received answers that I could truly understand. Now, I just say “thank you.”
But here’s what I really think.
I think photographs should look like photographs. Photographers are welcome to add texture to their images, paint on them, add diffuse layers, distort things, toy with perspective, and al the other things that painters do, but if at the end the image looks like it was created with brushes, oils, watercolors, or palette knives, I think “why bother.” However, I’ve seen very few photographic images that look like they were painted, unless they were actually painted on (nod to Kim Weston and Holly Roberts here).
That’s not to say that photographers can’t learn a lot from painters. Studying art history and the work of painters can make you better at lighting, perspective control, composition, subject selection, and a host of other things. I sometimes employ chiaroscuro, and I’m conscious of the debt I owe to Apollodoros, da Vinci, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Goya.
On the flip side, I’m not a big fan of paintings that look like photographs. Thank goodness, I haven’t seen many of those either. I don’t think that hyperrealistic paintings look much like photographs; I think they are mostly their own thing.
Although I started out decades ago making Large Format silver gelatin prints, today I make digital images: some which resemble paintings to varying degrees, and others that look strictly like photos. I don’t distinguish or categorize images along this spectrum.
I do the same with monochrome versus color: I use what whatever works best, on a case by case basis.
Ultimately an image is an image, and “If you like it, you like it”.
When folks tell me one of my photographic prints looks “painterly,” I usually simply take it as a compliment though I’m usually not sure why.
I never use texture overlays, almost never print on textured paper. While I sometimes enjoy the work of colleagues who modify their images, it’s not something I ever do.
I have enough of a challenge making a print with the tools I have, Lightroom and Photoshop.
I think, most people consider »paintings« to be »works of art«, »made by masters«, »worth to be shown at exhibitions«, just like what most people would think about paintings from Rembrandt / van Gogh etc.
I think, it is just another way of saying »I like it very much« or »I could not have done it, even though I have a good camera«.
Just taking it as a compliment is probably the right way.
And the flip side, how about hyper-realistic paintings that look like photographs (e.g. Chuck Close)?
I hear this comment about my work all the time. I’m puzzled by it somewhat but think I may be coming to a conclusion. I feel there’s no reason for a photograph to look like a “photograph” if the techniques used are truly photographic and not some software program that artificially adds brushstrokes. I’m not sure that the people who make this comment about painterly photographs fully know what they are thinking. But “painterly” doesn’t mean it actually looks like its made with paint but rather texture isn’t the primary objective, compositions are tight and purposeful, light is soft, color palette is limited. These are things that I believe observers of my images also associate with paintings and so they feel my work looks like a painting.