Section 7:
I had a hard time understanding the entirety of the section but what I think the section discussed was the argument of the value of painting versus photography. It then goes on to discuss the value of film versus photography. I have always struggled with this controversy myself because photography has always been my favorite medium to work with. I constantly asked myself whether I thought painting or drawing was more artistic than photography because with photography you are merely looking into a viewfinder and pressing a button. I like what this section said when it was talking about how people only wondered whether or not photography was an art and not whether the invention of photography had transformed the nature of art. I thought this was interesting because I never considered this a possibility, that photography has just changed what art can be, and shouldn't be pushed away as an art form.
Film on the other hand is different. This section states that the question of whether photography is an art or not were nothing compared to the concerns raised about film. It's hard to think of a time when photography and film didn't exist as an art form but I can imagine the confusion people must have had when they were invented. Drawing, painting, sculpting and other forms of art have always been around and are undoubtably art forms but photography and film are much different. I think it is interesting to think about how new forms of art were developed and how scary/exciting that must have been for people. After much thought, I still am not entirely sure about my views on whether painting is "better" than photography or film or not. The one thing I am positive about is that photography and film are definitely art forms, just a different kind of art form.
No comments:
Post a Comment