It has often been claimed that photography displaced painting. Evaluate the arguments for and against this position.
* Arguments of Photography displaced painting
* 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
* 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 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document