The paintings on the walls in the Talk To Me video

Angelick Witch · #1 05-22-2006, 09:51 AM

OK, this would be another random question, but does anyone know anything about them? Especially the sunrisey one with the sea, because it's gorgeous!

Sorry for the not-great quality...

ELIUD · #2 05-22-2006, 11:32 AM

Those are just photos of the backdrops and sets used throughout the video. They're not paintings that's for sure.

BTFLCHLD · #3 05-22-2006, 12:48 PM

The video as described in summary on Burnish:

Talk To Me
May 1985 - Stevie is sitting on a fur rug, wearing a brown cape, her hair is wild and she is shaking her head violently. As the camera pulls back, another room can be seen. This one is of dark wood tables lit with candles. The window becomes a portal looking in at Stevie.

Stevie sings at a mic in red, then she's in a blue dress and there is a sunset behind her. She is also in a white room with stairs and four paintings on the walls. Each of the paintings represents one of the rooms of the video where most of the action takes place. One is of the dark wood room, one is of the sunset, one is of a candyland and the last is of the first room where Stevie sits on the floor.

Back in the white room, Stevie is joined by Sharon, Lori (backup singers), Chris (her brother) and Brad Jeffreys (her choreographer). They dance, then an image of Chris playing the saxophone is projected on the wall behind them.

ELIUD · #4 05-22-2006, 02:52 PM

Is your point in posting that description to imply that just because TeeGee at Burnish called the images on the walls paintings, they are definitely pantings?
Because they aren't.

Angelick Witch · #5 05-22-2006, 03:35 PM

Hmm.... Well, if they're not paintings, then that's sad. I really like them. Do you think my Art teacher would believe me if I said Stevie painted them...?

ELIUD · #6 05-22-2006, 03:47 PM

Depends on whether she's a fan. But I would tell her Stevie had these separate visions in a dream and painted them for the art director of the video. Then they spent a lot of money building all these sets until they got it right - just like her paintings. So you can say she did paint them but they had to build sets from her paintings.

BTFLCHLD · #7 05-22-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELIUD

Is your point in posting that description to imply that just because TeeGee at Burnish called the images on the walls paintings, they are definitely pantings?
Because they aren't.

The point of the post was to provide information.

ELIUD · #8 05-22-2006, 03:57 PM

The information you provided supports an idea that is wrong. It was my attempt to correct the notion that there are paintings on the walls in the Talk to Me video. There are not.

BTFLCHLD · #9 05-22-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELIUD

The information you provided supports an idea that is wrong. It was my attempt to correct the notion that there are paintings on the walls in the Talk to Me video. There are not.

In your opinion, what exactly is "wrong" with what Burnish has posted?

ELIUD · #10 05-22-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

In your opinion, what exactly is "wrong" with what Burnish has posted?

That there are paintings on the walls in the Talk To Me video. They are photos or very likely videotaped still-shots of the sets used throughout the video. They are not paintings, therefore the description is wrong.

BTFLCHLD · #11 05-22-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELIUD

That there are paintings on the walls in the Talk To Me video. They are photos or very likely videotaped still-shots of the sets used throughout the video. They are not paintings, therefore the description is wrong.

Yes, "images" would have been a better word choice. Burnish should be banished for such a blunder!

SpyNote · #12 05-22-2006, 06:18 PM

I think her description was generally describing what was conveyed in the video, which were three dimensional paintings on the wall of a gallery-like hall. I don't think she literally meant there were paintings drawn by a specific artist on the wall.

ELIUD · #13 05-22-2006, 06:36 PM

My point was she and anybody else who called what was on the walls "paintings" is wrong. Because they are not paintings, and the person who started this thread wanted to know more about these supposed paintings. So as a courtesy I thought I would tell her what they were: pictures of the sets and backdrops used throughout the video.

And what the hell is a "three dimensional painting"? TeeGee never said anything about 3D paintings.

SpyNote · #14 05-22-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELIUD

My point was she and anybody else who called what was on the walls "paintings" is wrong. Because they are not paintings, and the person who started this thread wanted to know more about these supposed paintings. So as a courtesy I thought I would tell her what they were: pictures of the sets and backdrops used throughout the video.

Great. But I don't think Burnish's description was wrong, as it didn't appear like she literally meant a painting that was done by an artist. She was describing what the video was trying to convey--paintings on the wall, not video backdrops. Just like there literally wasn't a sunset behind her.

Quote:

And what the hell is a "three dimensional painting"? TeeGee never said anything about 3D paintings.

Obviously, there is no such thing as a three dimensional painting. But the video was trying to convey this concept.

ELIUD · #15 05-23-2006, 10:48 AM

My God, you make no sense. Just because something can be nailed to a wall doesn't mean you have free reign to call it a "painting". English hasn't decomposed enough to allow that, like the way we accept "Kleenex" to mean "tissue" and "Xerox" to mean "copy".

Have mercy and just let this thread die already.