It Has Been Claimed That Photography Displaced Painting
Essay Outline
It has often been claimed that photography displaced painting. Evaluate the arguments for and against this position.
* Arguments of Photography displaced painting
For: * As technologies improve simultaneously, photography become more easy to use and common * In 19th Century when Camera Obscura improved, photography became a preferred alternative for portrait because it is less time consuming manner with minimal financial expenses. * A better documentation tool because photography is considered more real and accurate
Against: * Photography and painting can be identifies as two different things. They cannot be replace completely to one another. * Painting and photography are two vastly different medias, and photography is a valid medium in its own right, that is, not a replacement for painting. * Photography cannot create textures or using colours to create the emotions. * Photography can capture the moment, but painting shows the realism is expressed in the moment captured.
* Introduction of Photography
The …show more content…
idea of photography was introduced in the early 15th century; throughout the history of art, photography has been considered to be less valuable and less important than painting, sculpture, dance, and drama. Photography also faced debate whether it would be regarded as fine art in history. As technology improved the invention of photography has often been accused of replacing the traditional means of painting. Painting was used as a recording tool to capture the moments around and life in general. When photography was introduced it had started to replace the recording function of painting, as the method was much more convenient and realistic. Throughout the history, painting and photography had many effects on each other, they shared similarities but also can be identify as two different things.
* The Invention of the Camera
The invention of Camera Obscura was one of the key elements in photography history. In the late 19th Century, many painters had used the Camera Obscura as a tool for drawing. By using the Camera Obscura, the painters can produce a highly accurate representation through tracing the image on a piece of paper when it is placed on a transparent glass plate. Camera Obscura was often used for portraits and landscape photography back in the 18th Century.
* The rise in photography
It can be argue that photography had replaced painting; photos can be duplicated, enlarged or reproduced with relatively little effort, allowing it to become more common as the technologies improve simultaneously. Also, using photography as a documentation tool than painting become more popular, as photography was considered more real and accurate than painting. Economically, it definitely holds the upper hand when compared alongside the static means of oil painting; however, it should also be noted that paintings provide a sense of individuality that photography doesn’t offer.
Photography compositions, elements are based on painting.
From the beginning artists uses the standard of painting to judge the photograph, photography wasn’t accepted as art at first. As the technologies of Camera Obscura improved, it alerted painters of the potential threat that photography had on the art of painting in the future. As a result, the style of painting began to change; as it started to incorporate finer details such as facial expressions, lighting and colour. At first, Camera Obscura was mainly used as an aid for drawings; it was only when the first photographic image produced by Joseph Nicephore Niepce using Camera Obscura photography in1839 that they became two different things .It had also stated that’s when the photography break through the traditional of art. Many artists became nervous, feeling as though they were no longer needed for composing portraits for other
people.
* The painting vs photography debate
In the late 19th – 20th Century, the question of whether photography was fine art also emerged. Alfred Stieglitz was an American photographer; spent his lifetime making photography an accepted art form. Alfred Stieglitz believed that in order to take photography out of the shadows of painting, photographers needed to create works that revealed its medium in a different way, and separate the outcome from painting and common photography. In the 19th Century, the public started to accept photography as an acceptable art form, as was presented alongside other art mediums such as painting, sculpture, drawings and etc.
Photography and painting certainly can be identified as two different things. As John Szarkowski believes paintings that were ‘made’ and it establish from traditional skills and theories, where as photograph were “taken”. With the technology in photograph constantly improving it has become more distinguished from painting. Painting and photography are two vastly different medias, and photography is a valid medium in its own right, that is, not a replacement for painting. Hippolyte Delaroche was a French painter who mentioned, “From today, Painting is dead.” after seeing the first daguerreotype but most of his works are still based on painting. In fact, there are more painters now. In addition Susan Sontag had defined photography as a tool to freeze time and emphasized that the photograph itself represented the actual moment from when it was taken. For Susan Sontag, the art of photography was "as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are", for cameras are produced rapidly as a "mass art form" and are available to all of those with the means to attain them. (Wells, L. 2004, P.27)
* Photographs and images that going to discuss in the essay
In the essay it is also going to discuss other paintings such as “Mona Lisa” from Leonardo da Vinci and “The dying Seneca” from Peter Paul Rubens. Mona Lisa is painted around the 15thcentury but it was only become popular in the 19th century because of the emerging symbolist movement began. Both paintings have a disturbing reality that photography cannot produce. Photography can capture the moment, where it is evidential in the “Mona Lisa” and “The dying Seneca” that realism is expressed in the moment captured.
It has often been claimed that photography displaced painting. Evaluate the arguments for and against this position.
* Arguments of Photography displaced painting
For: * As technologies improve simultaneously, photography become more easy to use and common * In 19th Century when Camera Obscura improved, photography became a preferred alternative for portrait because it is less time consuming manner with minimal financial expenses. * A better documentation tool because photography is considered more real and accurate
Against: * Photography and painting can be identifies as two different things. They cannot be replace completely to one another. * Painting and photography are two vastly different medias, and photography is a valid medium in its own right, that is, not a replacement for painting. * Photography cannot create textures or using colours to create the emotions. * Photography can capture the moment, but painting shows the realism is expressed in the moment captured.
* Introduction of Photography
The …show more content…
idea of photography was introduced in the early 15th century; throughout the history of art, photography has been considered to be less valuable and less important than painting, sculpture, dance, and drama. Photography also faced debate whether it would be regarded as fine art in history. As technology improved the invention of photography has often been accused of replacing the traditional means of painting. Painting was used as a recording tool to capture the moments around and life in general. When photography was introduced it had started to replace the recording function of painting, as the method was much more convenient and realistic. Throughout the history, painting and photography had many effects on each other, they shared similarities but also can be identify as two different things.
* The Invention of the Camera
The invention of Camera Obscura was one of the key elements in photography history. In the late 19th Century, many painters had used the Camera Obscura as a tool for drawing. By using the Camera Obscura, the painters can produce a highly accurate representation through tracing the image on a piece of paper when it is placed on a transparent glass plate. Camera Obscura was often used for portraits and landscape photography back in the 18th Century.
* The rise in photography
It can be argue that photography had replaced painting; photos can be duplicated, enlarged or reproduced with relatively little effort, allowing it to become more common as the technologies improve simultaneously. Also, using photography as a documentation tool than painting become more popular, as photography was considered more real and accurate than painting. Economically, it definitely holds the upper hand when compared alongside the static means of oil painting; however, it should also be noted that paintings provide a sense of individuality that photography doesn’t offer.
Photography compositions, elements are based on painting.
From the beginning artists uses the standard of painting to judge the photograph, photography wasn’t accepted as art at first. As the technologies of Camera Obscura improved, it alerted painters of the potential threat that photography had on the art of painting in the future. As a result, the style of painting began to change; as it started to incorporate finer details such as facial expressions, lighting and colour. At first, Camera Obscura was mainly used as an aid for drawings; it was only when the first photographic image produced by Joseph Nicephore Niepce using Camera Obscura photography in1839 that they became two different things .It had also stated that’s when the photography break through the traditional of art. Many artists became nervous, feeling as though they were no longer needed for composing portraits for other
people.
* The painting vs photography debate
In the late 19th – 20th Century, the question of whether photography was fine art also emerged. Alfred Stieglitz was an American photographer; spent his lifetime making photography an accepted art form. Alfred Stieglitz believed that in order to take photography out of the shadows of painting, photographers needed to create works that revealed its medium in a different way, and separate the outcome from painting and common photography. In the 19th Century, the public started to accept photography as an acceptable art form, as was presented alongside other art mediums such as painting, sculpture, drawings and etc.
Photography and painting certainly can be identified as two different things. As John Szarkowski believes paintings that were ‘made’ and it establish from traditional skills and theories, where as photograph were “taken”. With the technology in photograph constantly improving it has become more distinguished from painting. Painting and photography are two vastly different medias, and photography is a valid medium in its own right, that is, not a replacement for painting. Hippolyte Delaroche was a French painter who mentioned, “From today, Painting is dead.” after seeing the first daguerreotype but most of his works are still based on painting. In fact, there are more painters now. In addition Susan Sontag had defined photography as a tool to freeze time and emphasized that the photograph itself represented the actual moment from when it was taken. For Susan Sontag, the art of photography was "as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are", for cameras are produced rapidly as a "mass art form" and are available to all of those with the means to attain them. (Wells, L. 2004, P.27)
* Photographs and images that going to discuss in the essay
In the essay it is also going to discuss other paintings such as “Mona Lisa” from Leonardo da Vinci and “The dying Seneca” from Peter Paul Rubens. Mona Lisa is painted around the 15thcentury but it was only become popular in the 19th century because of the emerging symbolist movement began. Both paintings have a disturbing reality that photography cannot produce. Photography can capture the moment, where it is evidential in the “Mona Lisa” and “The dying Seneca” that realism is expressed in the moment captured.