« R. John's comment on Vergil | Main | Split Screen »



I am a painter. In my experience, the difference between painting and photography is not in the image but the source. A painting is the product of a mind working through the hand with an assumption the audience reacts to the color, the surface (texture), the line, and the balance of angles to curves in the painting similar to how the image moved the painter during the extended moments of creation.

A photograph captures a singular moment the photographer patiently looked for and found. It has a pedigree (assumed) of veracity painting does not aspire to. The subject, content, composition, and point of view are by design the focus of a photograph.

By virtue of how images are received (the eye) commonalities between the two arts are unavoidable. That they also work to achieve similar goals (the validation of emotion, a tangible result of mental experience, and the communication of raw visual knowledge) comparing the two mediums is inevitable.

I don't believe one is more valid than the other. It depends on what purpose they serve to the audience. A more immediate sharing of first-hand visual knowledge tends to sponsor the creation of photographs. The human memory of emotional experience tends to sponsor the creation of paintings.

I am more interested in painting for personal reasons.

The comments to this entry are closed.