Sorin

Aesthetics Visual Arts
21

It is also not simply because those paintings is very detailed - it is because they are naturalistic (in color, in the use of light, ect). Everything is just as a photo camera would capture.

Ok, you’re not getting what I’m saying. Using realistic colors and lighting schemes and painting with such control that a painting looks as if it could be a photograph does not mean that it is naturalistic and non-romantic. Even Ayn Rand used the term “romantic realism” which recognizes that “romantic” isn’t th opposite of “realistic”. Many romantic paintings use colors and lighting that could be seen in nature just as a camera might capture it.

What are the essential characteristic(s) of romantic art? (I have given you my answer in my previous post).

I think romanticism is a way of making art which empasizes emotion, idealization or drama, and naturalism is about avoiding artifice or forced sentimentality. As I said in my very first post, the sheer drama of the lighting and the contrast and intensity of colors make the Sorin paintings about as romantic as you can get.

TerBush’s paintings are also very detailed but they are enhanced - poeticized if you will (that element of glorification) - which is mostly done through the use of light. He does not use light in a naturalistic way the way Sorin does.

I think that our communication problem might be because you have an idea of romanticism that is different from what most people usually mean. The Terbush paintings that you linked to would be thought of as romanticism, but as being very close to fantasy, especially the second one. I just looked at his website and I see that some of his other paintings cross over completely into fantasy. They’re a lot like the fantasy art of Max Parrish. So if that is romanticism to you, it makes more sense to me now that you see some kinds of romanticism as naturalism. It’s like if someone thought that red was purple then it would make sense that they also thought purple was blue.

I want to be clear about something else too in case iit has caused miscommunication. Up until my last pararaph I have been talking about the paintings that you posted here and not the additional ones at Sorin’s or TerBush’s websites. I think some of the other paintings at Sorin’s site are naturalistic since they are not fiery or dramatic.

Well then it will be easy to explain.

I thought that it was easy to explain and that I explained it. Now I’m thinking that you would need to be more familiar with art history and with which kinds of landscapes represent romanticism to understand the comparisons I’m talking about.

The good news is that I’m no longer puzzled about why you don’t see the Sorin paintings as romantic.

Val

22

Using realistic colors and lighting schemes and painting with such control that a painting looks as if it could be a photograph does not mean that it is naturalistic and non-romantic.

I don’t disagree. In this case, it was a combination of things which lead me to my conclusion and not just one aspect in isolation.

I think that our communication problem might be because you have an idea of romanticism that is different from what most people usually mean. The Terbush paintings that you linked to would be thought of as romanticism, but as being very close to fantasy, especially the second one.

I don’t think it must be close to fantasy (just look at other paintings which I posted here).

And our “communication problem” is mostly due to the tone with which you have chosen to address me (starting with the Huhh?? instead of a question).

23

And our “communication problem” is mostly due to the tone with which you have chosen to address me (starting with the Huhh?? instead of a question).

Ok, I apologize if you took it as rudeness or an attack. The “huh???” was reaaly just an expression of puzzlement. I would have the same reaction if I heard someone say that chocolate cake lacks a dessert component.

But you’re not the only one who thought I was rude. I’ve gotten private messages from others saying the same thing. So, sorry if I got off on the wrong foot.

Val

24

So, I have an interesting question, since debating between TerBush and Sorin is going to get difficult I think. Of the 4 paitings above, rank them with respect to Romantic style.

My particular order would be

Oasis

Reflections

Sunset

Not quite sure where to put the last just yet. Other than being a sort of interesting composition in perspective and line (again the photographer’s technique) it does little for me. I would put it around the Sunset I think.

If the building in Reflections had been the primary subject with more emphasis to it, say as in this painting, then I might have ranked it higher.

25

Ok, I apologize if you took it as rudeness or an attack. The “huh???” was reaaly just an expression of puzzlement. I would have the same reaction if I heard someone say that chocolate cake lacks a dessert component.

Well you have to have the context of the type of art the Sophia usually brings us, as well as her standard for including it in a post. I doubt she would have brought it here, unless it had some component of romanticism, and these examples, by far of the one’s she’s brought, have the least. So your puzzlement is really an issue of degree. If you look at what she brings, you’d see that this stuff is hardly chocolate cake as far as romanticism goes. More like scones. Tasty, sweet, but a bit chewy and dull at times.

26

Ok, I apologize…

But you are not the only one…

I appreciate your honesty. Apology accepted.