Average people who are not very attractive or beautiful in real life or photos may also appear more pleasing to look at on paintings etc. Is there a scientific explanation on it?
I know some people may be disagree with me, but it still don't change the fact that it's common to think so.
#Drawing #Painting #Art #Photography
Most Helpful Girls
I think the one that is more pleasing to look at depends on the photograph/painting and the person. If you give me a bad painting and a good photograph, I'll take the photograph. If you give me a good painting and a bad photograph I'll take the painting but if I'm given a painting and a photograph that are both extremely good, I'll take the painting because I'm a a lover of drawings and paintings so yeah. But for me, it just has to be a good picture and I'll love it.
I think it's because it's our natural instinct to fix the "problems" we find in our faces. Like if you drew a portrait of yourself, you'll find your nose is bigger than you thought and would naturally want to draw it smaller thinking this is how it should look. Plus drawing just isn't able to convey all our flaws
Most Helpful Guys
That's a pretty broad statement. The idea that one art-form is more pleasing than another is ridiculous. Art, whether it be a drawing, a painting, or a photo, is subjective. What pleases you the most has no bearing on what pleases others. And trying to bolster your opinion by calling it a fact is meaningless. Some people like paintings more then they like photos. That's true. Don't people prefer photography. That is also true. And some people don't like either. Still true. But to say most people like any specific art form is too subjective a statement, too broad, too general. All generalities are false.
Since I am a renderer (drawings of inanimate objects), artist (oils, pastels, pencil, charcoal) and a photographer (film, digital) for 50 years, I really have no vested interest in which opinion wins ;-) But I digress. There are no published findings about why this might be so. If I were to hazard a guess from the psychological aspect, I would think that there is more of a personal connection between the subject and the image which was drawn by a A HAND rather than a split-second that was captured by A CAMERA. To a lesser degree, someone could get picky and mention aerial perspective vs. depth of field, etc. From the functional standpoint, (arguably) it is easiest to take a decent photo (given camera technology), harder to do a decent painting, but hardest to do a decent drawing (since you are only working with light and shadow). Given that, perhaps the viewers are paying deserved homage to the drawing, the hardest of the three media to master.