And even if you use software to simulate real tintypes, it takes some command of the process to achieve whatever artistic objectives one might have in simulating a tintype in the first place.
My beef with these is that the artist is claiming credit for the software's artistry, given that the artist exercises no control or decision over the software, other than simply choosing to use it.
Artists who have no concern with the technology of their medium sometimes make big mistakes. The painter Albert Ryder often covered slow-drying paints with fast-drying paints or varnishes, with the result that the surface cracked and the underlying paints bled through. That was certainly not his intentions, but I'll bet there are software simulations of the result somewhere. Yes, his artistry overcame that, but it would be nice if people could see the paintings today (or in many cases even while he was still alive) as they looked when he painted them.
Some, like this one, he might have tried to fix himself years after he painted it.
Compare these with, say, Rembrandt, whose paintings are a quarter-millenium older than Ryder's, and reflect the artist's original intentions far more closely, despite the effects of aging.
Rembrandt, of course, was deeply concerned with craft, such that his technique has become a standard of learning for painters, even those who choose to go in much different aesthetic directions.
Rick "wondering if the hipster aesthetic extends beyond 'wow, that's cool.'" Denney
Bookmarks