these three questions has been a hot topic for hundreds of years, but still their is no solid answer for all of them. because for everyone its something different. photography it falls into both categories of art and science, as much as it is expression and a means of visually displaying peoples ideas,feelings,thoughts and ideas it also involves sciences in a major degree.
photography for me is a way of expressing ones three dimensional ideas and converting them into a two dimensional image. there are just some things that cant be explained in words but they need to have a photo to back them up.
their is so much more to the camera than we can grasp. its a technological genius invention, who would of thought you could grab a scene from life and place it on a flat surface, its freezing time in some sense. photography was more of a science brake thought when it first came out, but now in a modern day society we are in a media rich filled world that thrives on images, the camera is just part of everyday life now.
art is something that can never be perfectly described in words, its something that it has such a broad range. it has been practiced for millions of years, soon as creatures became aware of their surrounds, thats when it was created. as the ages slowly moved on science and art slowly get merged together, and as more time goes on the "science and art" gets more technologically advanced, ie photography.
Were there any examples from the DVD that illustrate the debates between science and art and the function of photography? You make some interesting points about photography - but the video was quite specific about the historical arguments that address this issue.
ReplyDelete