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…
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