Photography VS Painting

Our discussions and readings in class about photography really got me thinking about how I feel about it, and specifically how I feel about photography in contrast with painting. I am an Illustration major at LCAD, but my first love, and quite frankly my passion, is painting in oils. I appreciate photography as an art form, as well as rely heavily on reference photography myself while painting, and have friends who are actual professional photographers, but I’m constantly having to fight myself with my gut reaction of having less respect for the photograph in comparison to the painting.

On one hand, I completely agree with Berger… photography should not be considered art. For me, art implies creation at it’s very core… and I’m sorry, but a photographer snapping an image of what is in front of them is not what creates the image. They click a button, and the camera does the rest. And I know it can be more technical and advanced than that, but, still... anyone can take a picture, and that’s what makes photography so great! But to think of all photographers then as artists, or to try and compare the photo to the painting… raises my brow a bit.

Technically, anyone can also paint. Give someone a brush and some paints and a surface to paint on, and presto!: painting. But unless the art of painting is studied, the piece may or may not have any merit of skill. What Madison said in class though, really resonated with me. As a painter, I’ve lost a bit of respect for photographers… because as a painter, I set up reference shots myself, and then paint. I do twice the amount of work than a photographer to create an image, and yet they tote around their photograph as if they put as much time and effort into creating and constructing it as I did with my painting.

A photograph can never be an original piece, either, like a painting can. A photo, even when there’s only one existing copy in the entire world… is still just a copy, and technically, can be reproduced/scanned and reprinted in today’s technological world. A painting can be scanned and reprinted and reproduced, but the fact still remains, there lies an actual original unique piece of artwork that can never be duplicated or copied exactly, even with the finest printers.

But too, I also agree with Sontag. Some photography is breathtaking, and by itself is aesthetically beautiful. Even though it pains me a little to admit it, I don’t believe everything is meant to become a painting. Some things in this world exist outside of the painted realm, and to some degree that’s how it will always be (until someone decides to make it their subject). In either case, however, I would say that both photography and painting gives us a deeper retrospective of the world we inhabit. Both give us a commentary into diverse cultures, and both serve to record life; in both a literal and abstract way.

I will also note the existence of hyper-realism in some paintings, and the painterly effect in some photographs. It seems that the lines are constantly being blurred, pushed and pulled. Still, there’s a part of me that just wants to say that creating a painting is more time consuming, and requires more dedication and patience than snapping a photo, but I fear that might be a little pompous of me.