The interpretation of three-dimensionality seems to depend on a difference in perception based on either shape-from-shading predominantly (middle and right pear) or a combination of shape-from-texture and shape-from-shading (left pear). This suggests an inconsistency in Hanneke’s rendering. If you look at the pear drawing image from close up, the left pear might look more 3D (because of texture) but standing across the room and looking at the monitor, the center and right pear look more 3D and the left pear looks flat (because the texture becomes too high spatial frequency to be a useful cue for shape).

I’m glad I asked what luminous meant. I see it can have many different meanings, some of them different for a photograph versus a drawing.

In photography, capturing the light of a scene is not the biggest challenge, because pattern of light is captured directly through the lens. For an artist making a drawing, capturing the sense of lighting is non-trivial, and it may not even be the goal (for example, in contour drawing). Therefore it makes sense that luminous could have a different meaning as praise for a photograph versus a drawing or painting. What the photographer captures automatically can be a challenge for the painter. On the other hand, the best effects that a photographer could achieve might be beyond the imagination of the painter.

You earlier mentioned that Hanneke’s fig still life reminded you of something of your own, and Steve wrote something similar above. I think this comparison of similar subjects recorded with different media could be most informative if taken further.

name, left pear, center pear, right pear
Leslie, most 2-D,most 3-D,2- to 3-D
Colin, 2-D, 3-D, 3-D
Steve, 2- to 3-D, 3-D, 3-D
Karl, 3-D, 2-D, 2-D
Troels, 3-D, 2-D, 2-D.

I still do not have an opinion because I don’t understand where the light is coming from.

I would say the middle one is the most 3D of all three, and the left the most 2D. I don’t know that the flatness is a bad thing at all - they have more of an ethereal feel than the paintings. Kind of like the difference between a watercolor and oil painting, the latter being more solid. But I am not sure that ethereality (is that a word? it is now) is what Hanneke is going for here. I think it has a lot to do with the restraint of the marks - they are very light and carefully built up. I can imagine them feeling solid and weighty with more aggressive, darker marks, for example. But her touch is so nice and delicate and subtle…

Luminous

I’ve had a go at explaining luminous. Remarkably similar to what Steve has written.