102 replies to this topic

[Crowboy]

Actually, I mean... to a point, yes? If a piece is clearly overly stylized, that's one thing, but while this piece does have a painterly aesthetic, the style is still quite realistic. Artists generally need to have a pretty firm grasp of light, reflections, etc. And if they were going to go to the trouble of putting a reflection in her eye, I'd think they'd want to get it right. 

I don't think asking an artist to be proficient in physics and the laws of nature is a valid request, however you want to put it.

[Vainamoinen]

You're really gonna apply optics on an image/painting?

Just the usual. Optics/physics, anatomy/biology, perspective, composition etc. Everything connected to light is, of course, THE foundation for an artist.
 

Picasso is turning in his grave as we speak...

I don't agree. Picasso could and would use optics in his paintings. It's just that he often, very visibly, broke the rules for artistic effect.
 

Now that I think about it, that photo shouldn't exist since the only way it can exist optically is if someone took a picture of Zoe, which was not the case because otherwise she would smile to the camera...

Who said it is a photo?

[Crowboy]

LIke I said, however you want to say it, if you want to say "laws of physics do not allow this image/painting/whatever to contain this or that", I say very simply, that such a claim is irrelevant.

But if you REALLY want to go there, here's a simple explanation, this scene is most likely set in Arcadia, so magic is involved

 

Who said it is a photo?

 

I think my point is clear...