Painted Portraits Classier than Photos?
If you are going to ask any random person which is classier, a painting or a photo, they will most often say that it is the painting and there are very good reasons for this. While many might argue that it is all about the bias that built up over the centuries, it’s not just that. Such discussions can be potent enough to draw in crowds to any website, with website visitors eager to learn more about the subject.
In any case, the point is that painted portraits don’t simply come off as classier than photos because they simply are classier. The reasons for this are myriad and can even involve a fair bit of complexity in terms of the judgment calls and context. However, much of it boils down to the points listed below.
More than anything else, it’s the historical context tied to paintings that can often make them more expensive than photos. Rulers, aristocrats, and powerful families have had their likeness featured in paintings for hundreds of years. This is why such modes of displaying imagery can often cost significantly more than those printed on photo paper and why they appear classier.
Paintings can be considered classier than photos simply because of how much more skill is required in producing such imagery compared to clicking on a button. It can take entire decades for painters to hone their craft to the point where they can confidently start producing portraits that are worth any money. This is especially on point when considering that the value of paintings can be subject.
Finally, there is the matter of the costs with regards to commissioning paintings. Everything from the materials that go into the painting to the time of the painter do not come cheap. This is why there is a palpable level of class that goes with painted portraits and why a lot of those with the opportunity or money to commission an oil piece gladly do so. It’s basically like how experts build a website better than going with a design that is available to most other people.