July 3, 2009 10:29 AM
I read somewhere this week that one major difference between photography and painting is that, with photography, the image is without surface, a window into a version of reality, whereas in painting, the image *is* surface essentially. A surface on which the artist depicts his version of reality. Like all generalizations, this is 'arguable.' As a corollary, if you buy into at least the better part of the generalization, you might also be able to say that as a rule, it can be broken more easily with digital photography, i.e., it is easier to create image surfaces and convincing ones like this one than it is/was with silver/chemical processes. This picture is coming to me direct from "La Grande Jatte" and it's a corker!