This debate came into mind when I was reading an essay on the work of Gerhard Richter, "I want to make a photograph":Photography, Landscape and Nature in the Work of Gerhard Richter, written by Jean-Philippe Antoine, where its stated that an icon,
"may represent its object mainly by its similarity, no matter what its mode of being."
A photograph and a painting bare definite iconic natures through their indicial qualities. Where a photograph is affected by its mechanical process of obtaining objective imagery through capturing the action of light, a painting is affected by the artist's subjective gesture.
I've decided that perhaps it could be that a painting contains more iconic potential when we consider the actual process the painter experiences. When painting, I believe that the painter will sub-consciously focus on a specific subjective interpretation of the image. For example, at the minute I have been painting from a found photograph that contains a town scape with two figures centred in the middle. It seems inevitable to me that either the figures or the town scape will become more prominent.
What I think I'm trying to say that, even with a photograph's nature of an objective trace, a painting will be more direct. In fact it may not even be the figures or town scape that ends up dominating my painted image, but part of a figure or part of the landscape. Even when using painting techniques that bring the image more into abstraction, its for a specific expression. The painted imagery will become a direct reference to whatever context the artist wishes to adhere to.
Therefore, does this mean a painting more iconic?
I've decided that perhaps it could be that a painting contains more iconic potential when we consider the actual process the painter experiences. When painting, I believe that the painter will sub-consciously focus on a specific subjective interpretation of the image. For example, at the minute I have been painting from a found photograph that contains a town scape with two figures centred in the middle. It seems inevitable to me that either the figures or the town scape will become more prominent.
What I think I'm trying to say that, even with a photograph's nature of an objective trace, a painting will be more direct. In fact it may not even be the figures or town scape that ends up dominating my painted image, but part of a figure or part of the landscape. Even when using painting techniques that bring the image more into abstraction, its for a specific expression. The painted imagery will become a direct reference to whatever context the artist wishes to adhere to.
Therefore, does this mean a painting more iconic?
