Why we do the analysis for paintings when we are doing film light?
Films and paintings are both mediums of art. I guess the first obvious reason for doing lighting analysis is that there is also light in paintings. The light in the works is also under the control of the filmmaker or the artists; and yet, the lighting in paintings are more dynamic because it is only a comprehension of a type of lighting drawn by artists. They can produce lighting effects that are or aren’t possible in real life. However, what’s similar between the artists and filmmakers when manipulating light is that they both wish to convey a meaning by doing that. The painters do this by doing it all on one canvas, the filmmakers do this by keep reminding us in every frame that he made. With all those similarities, I find it natural and perhaps even necessary to do lighting analysis for paintings. They are both art, so they are connected. To be honest, I think every discipline is connected.
“Photography is truth, and cinema is truth 24 times a second. “
—— Le Petit Soldat, 1963
Притихло (Became Silent) — Nikolay Dubovskoy, 1890
I was stunned when I first saw this painting in Shanghai when there was a special exhibition. This painting definitely has triumphed in depicting the tranquility before the storm. When I think more about it, this painting also gives me a bit sense of fear because it’s just the moment before a storm. The storm, destructive, is about to break this peace and silence. One expects chaos, mourning for the fading peace.
In this painting, the main light source, the sunlight, casts down in between the clouds. It’s very soft on the water and has made the cloud the highlight in this painting. The middle left strip of this painting is its main emphasis—it is the most lighted part: the small boat, the trees by the water and the reflected sunlight. The sky in the distance is the grey part, lit by the reflected light. The darkest part is on the left—too dark to see much detail.
