Painting and photography are both respective crafts within their own right, but with the advancements in digital photography, many critics argue that the medium has lost its artistic credibility. From the photographs of acclaimed photographer and painter Andy Warhol, to the avant-garde work of Salvador Dali, both fields hold similar traits, and must follow corresponding laws. Despite this, until the advancement of digital imagery, photography has often been heralded as a very credible forum for art.
Photography and film both adhere to the laws of color theory, which are basically a group of practical guidances that involve color mixing and understanding the visual impact specific color combinations have on a viewer’s perception. Where this requires a more mastery of craft on the behalf of a painter, digital photographers merely need to click a button, and hold an advantage in that respect. An example of the great effect digital coloring has on perception can be seen in the cinematography used in the film The Aviator.The film, which depicted the life of mogul Howard Hughes, was awarded for its artistic use of Technicolor. There are many scenes in the film where the sky is made a slightly bluer shade, or the grass is made slightly greener, to correspond with wardrobe, or a character’s eyes. An issue that is largely proclaimed as part of the reason for photography’s decline in credibility is the ushering in of the digital era.
Now that photographs can be digitally enhanced it has created an era where photography is not easily as trusted.Many critics feel photography has become just as fictional as painting. This is just a further complication during war time, adding to more political scandal and potential methods of war propaganda. Many of the war time photographs of acclaimed photographer Franco Pagetti, who shoots for Time Magazine, have been praised as some of the best pictures of the past year. Despite this, many feel that his photos along with those of many other war time photographers fail to express as much as painted work. An example of this can be seen in the painting The Third of May 1808, by Goya.
In the painting, Goya is able to personify the machine like nature of evil and its contrast with innocence through specific coloring, shading and the placement of characters. This is something that is sometimes implied through real life situations, but can not always be captured as clearly in a photograph. This proves that paintings can do a better job of relaying metaphorical meaning. One advantage photographs do have over paintings is their ability to capture iconic images. Andy Warhol made a habit of painting franchise objects, like picture of Campbell’s soup cans and Coca cola bottles.
He argued that the American economic structure had allowed these objects to become iconic throughout the world. A Coca cola that the president drinks is no different from one drunk by a homeless man on the street. This places the coca cola at a symbolic level of familiarity that is uncontestable by most celebrities. Warhol’s artistic statement was noted and universally understood, but time has shown that the public rather see their human icons in photographs than in paintings. This can be seen in the popularity of celebrity magazines, Play Boy, Time, and National Geographic.Though it has become virtually assumed that photographs are touched up, paintings have a tradition of exaggerating images and making them larger than life.
Since celebrities are already deemed as larger than life, photos of them which capture them in real life situations are often more valued than paintings promoting the same theme. The value of these photographs has recently come into jeopardy through the use of digital interference, but this has just made authenticity the measure of their worth.Of course, it can always be argued that paintings are the ultimate signifier of celebrity, considering that Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa gained more notoriety through Da Vinci’s artistry than through Lisa Gherardini’s celebrity (the woman in the painting). In sum, film and photography are very compatible mediums. They both adhere to similar rules. Despite the advancement of digital photography, certain artistic truths will never change about the genre, and these truths correspond with the craft of painting, as well.
A common term used in film, mis-en-scene, refers to the placement of objects on the screen in association to one another. The mastery of this is a very delicate and respected craft, and it is just as applicable in both painting and photography. The placement of a hand on a shoulder, or an old man sitting next to a baby, says as much as a 24 verse poem. The relationship between these images rely on their placement within the frame, and this is the main factor that both photography and film have in common.
Finally, as long as photographs have the possibility of being authentically captured instances, they will always hold more significance than their painted counterparts. This is a value that will only enhance as time passes. While paintings are appreciated for their artistic meaning and human effort required to produce them, photographs are a critique on human nature and an immediate record of it. The ground is very shaky between these two mediums, but they both contribute equally to the human legacy.
