Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clambam
The purpose of art is not documentation. I can do a painting of a mountain and you can stand next to me and take a photograph of it. The photograph documents the appearance of the mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. The painting documents the experience of looking at a mountain on a certain day from a certain viewpoint. On the face of it, the photograph is much more successful in conveying the appearance of the mountain. In actuality, the painting conveys its essence, not just its appearance.
|
Ehhh... I'm waffling. I agree with you somewhat, but I still think it depends on the art. Different pieces of art have different purposes - some may be documentation - some may to convey essences and emotions.
Photography can be used in the same way. A family vacation photograph taken with a one-time Kodak camera captures a detailed view of that point in history. However, a photographer can "paint" his own photo with a variety of methods from capturing specific lighting and angles to the intentional adding of objects to the scenery in the photo. So maybe the same family could be standing in front of their car, smiling, but the photographer now has a specialized camera, kneeling off to one side to capture a certain feeling of emotion. Put simply, there's more than one way to take the same picture, which makes it into an art form as well. It's all about the intentions of the person behind the camera.
But I guess we're both opinionated and we both make good points. :)
EDITED:
I just realized blastradius just posted the same thing in less words while I was busy writing. :)
- Jonathan