In computational terms, a low resolution version of an image is almost by definition ‘simpler’, with fewer colours and details intact, but it seems like it would be much harder to do a convincing 1:1 replication of it in a painting compared to recreating a ‘clean’ HD version.
Or am I way off the mark? 😆 I’m not a painter, obviously. Seems like getting all of those weird JPEG artefacts right would be something of a novel skill for a traditional painter (or even a digital painter, for that matter).
Painters do not copy stuff.
It can’t be done. Like a photo, a painting only has access to a very limited range of values (you can’t paint sunlight at 2000w/m² for example) so the whole idea of an artist is “copying” is wrong, albeit widespread.
You convey, with the help of how the brain interprets things (like a circle with a bent line and two dots can be a happy face, think about that!) that is what artists do.
The impressionists were the masters of it, and you’re flabbergasted by their paintings, photos of them way less because photos are subject to similar problems…
Welcome to the wonderful world of art and paint!
That’s why historical depictions of battles are often dramatic and why Jesus and His disciples are sitting at one side of a very long table
Wut 😁?
The drama was because only (very) rich people could pay for a painting because paint was ludicrously expensive, who were rich? Kings. Who liked paintings of voluptuous battles? Kings.
For the last supper (jesus and his boys sitting on the same side of a large table), mebbe they didn’t have to live in cramped up spaces like we do and had large tables, or maybe that would have been a boring painting with 6-7 necks in the middle. Your pick!
Art is not to paint realisticly (except for that time in history) you can, and should, make it beautiful or impressive or both!
I think the painting of Jesus was theological like a lot of religious art, meant to depict a story rather than be a realistic depiction of an event
Well of course.
Also made to look “holy” and magical. It was surely (I haven’t looked it up) a comission from the church.
I just started messing around with paints. I sectioned a canvas out into a grid and it was difficult to get exact straight lines. Not sure if that has anything to do with what op was talking about but it seemed harder in that way, to get “pixel perfect” looking lines
I wonder if the surface of a canvas is just too irregular. It might be different if you were painting a sheet of glass.
Yeah good call thanks, maybe I’ll experiment with like fancy paper or wood instead.
I dunno I think this lady did a good job of painting a low res Jesus
I mean… pixel art. For sure it is hard in a completely different way than photorealism. Less to work with (for good and bad), and a new set of rules (for pixel placement). I’m sure there’s multiple valid techniques (digital first, rough planning, individual pixel canvases/swatches or some other collage etc… not to mention cross-stitching or various building toys if you count that).
I don’t see the appeal in re-creating artifacts, but I’m sure there are people who can make a convincing approximation (particularly if they know any of the technical reasoning for JPEGs).
I don’t have a definitive answer but I’d figure the low res might still be “easier” there is, for example a style called impressionism where they basically painted “pixels”.
Well, they painted the impression of “pixels” then :-)
it would depend on the style that the artist would chose to use.
if they’re going for realism, then, maybe.
But impressionism, surrealism, expressionism. anything abstract…? won’t really matter.
