Photography and Painting

I've started reading Susan Sontag's "On Photography" - a bit late coming to this one I admit. No comment so far but it got me back thinking about photography and it's uneasy relationship with "art".

It also coincided with me having a look at images from Critical Mass - a sort of competition that for better or worse sets the scene for some of the trends in the Art Market when it comes to photography.

Here is one of the finalists for example.

Now to my way of thinking, irrespective of the message whatever that is, this first image could have been done equally well as a painting. The link with what I would call photography is tenuous because it is not necessary.

In this famous photo by Dorothea Lange - which is not without some controversy of it's own according to Sontag - the opposite applies. If you created this as a painting you would be laughed out of the salon, though it might find it's way onto a chocolate box.

These sort of thoughts are one way I approach some photographs, especially if I find it difficult to understand them.

I should hurry to add that this second photograph is NOT part of the Critical Mass submissions - at least I assume not.

Comments (Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)
Thinking and rethinking about what you show and write here ... I beleive I agree completely!
# Posted By Peter | 10/31/08 7:37 PM
I have recently found your site and I have to say enjoy your photography alot. Apart from your excellent photos you have now posted my favourite picture by Dorothea Lange.... personally I am not sure why there may be a close linke between photography and painting since they are art forms in their own right, and not otherwise related...
# Posted By Sean | 11/6/08 6:02 PM
Hi Sean - thanks for the comment. I don't think the two are closely related either. I think that photography has some unique characteristics, and I use this little test to try and make my mind up whether something is really photography or whether it is just 2-dimensional art using photographic materials.
# Posted By Richard | 11/6/08 6:17 PM
I would tend to say the reason something is better in one medium or another is, very importantly, the intention driving it.

Taking a photo like Dorothea Lange's captured a moment of true feeling in the subject.

A painting like her photo could be just as good as the photo, only if the feeling and context of the subject ( but not necessarily representation ) could be accurately and psychologically conveyed.

Trends in art/photography are relatively poor places to find work that is strong outside of medium.
# Posted By michael | 12/26/08 8:53 PM
Michael - thanks for your thoughts and taking the time to look. First of all I have to say that my motives here were prompted by a growing problem I have with the labeling of art as photography. My own notion is that photography, although undeniably of the same community as other graphic arts, has another dimension that works of pure creativity do not. However as photography has become fashionable as Art this dimension has I think been rejected by a lot of people and as a consequence is liable to be overlooked, and even forgotten. This would be a loss in my view.

So, I would prefer it if works where the connection with the unique reproductive aspect of photography is missing, tenuous or unnecessary are labeled as Art and not as Photography. Might seem a bit obsessive, but there you go.

I think I have to disagree however about the possibility of the Dorothea Lange image as a painting. Bear in mind that I am talking about the exact representation in another form - not merely the depiction of subject/emotions.

So I play a game with fine art photography where I look at something and ask "could it have been represented exactly the same (more or less) as a painting or drawing without losing anything" - if the answer is "yes" then I mentally de-label it.
# Posted By richard | 12/27/08 4:12 PM
Implementation by Forthmedia Based on BlogCFC by Raymond Camden.