Pyvka Arnaud, Nelson, 2007
I think the question of whether photography is art is essentially a question of its prestige, position. Do we treat it on par with painting? Do the same extent as a painter, photographer, is worthy of our respect?
talk, as any discussion about the position and prestige, it looks pretty barren and useless, and is probably run by the poor and hopeless painters photographers who wanted to be a poor painters. Actually, it could close one truism: photography is photography. Key features that also distinguish it from painting: Immediate abstraction of reality in two dimensions, giving excellent detail, the infinite possibility of duplication of prints in its original form, is often used against her, but to me they are in fact only an empty statement, repeating over and over, that photography is not painting.
In fact, the most important is the work and its reception. Everyone must decide for yourself whether it looks at what is art or not. All of arbitrary statements to persuade us of the size of anything seem pointless.
0 comments:
Post a Comment