Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
(The Platonic original of a photograph)
[1] What distinguishes photography from painting, I submit, is *solely* the process; it's possible for a technically skilled painter to make a viewer say "wait, is that a photo?", or an inventive photo printer to make a viewer say "wait, is that a painting?", which by itself almost proves that you can't really distinguish the two media purely on viewable characteristics of the image.The two certainly speak the same language between the creator and the viewer, and what can be said about one in terms of image and communication can be equally said about the other. Discuss?
Yes, at the naive level of "looks like means same as" paintings and photographs can be contrived to resemble each other. But mere resemblance is the shallowest and most superficial way of looking at pictures and I reckon all images that don't evaporate somewhere between the eye and the memory carry richer connotations. And these connotations delight and reward the viewer who takes the trouble (or has the brains) to understand the creative, technical, and aesthetic strategies of the picture maker.