It has been said that one of the prime motivations for the Impressionists to develop a painterly style that rejected the practices of Classicism and Realism, is due to the invention of photography. What would be the point of painting if the photograph could represent the outside world more realistically and more accurately than a painter ever could?
Do you think the technology of the future will eventually cause similar shifts in modern art? Do you think technology will replace the artist?
Can you think of similar situations that photography or digital art might have gone through or will go through like painting did during the late nineteenth century?
i think that because of the fact that a photography is more realistic than a painting is what makes it impossible for photography to replace painting because in painting you can see reality through the eyes and heart of the artist while a picture shows reality the way it is, 2 artists can paint the same scene but the outcome will be different, if 30 photographers take the same picture the 30 pictures will look the same
ReplyDeleteI would actually be willing to go as far as to say that this is already starting to happen, as DSLRs are starting to introduce HD movie into their cameras. A recent Canon commercial is advertising how some images "need to move," or something to that effect. So, I can already see how digital photographers may turn to animated GIFs or digital video to keep up with this new trend in digital art. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea, but as a whole, I'm seeing this happening.
ReplyDeleteI think that painting serves some purpose from a person’s point of view, for the fact that some people are better at other things than others. From my prospective I think that painting is a whole other category, then photograph. Painting ultimately takes a little more talent then some might have where photo is trying to think of what angel and shot is most prone. For the most part I do not think tat technology will never take over, because we will all still have a passion for photography or art, and will carry are talent over and will teach others. Over the past century a lot of art has changed going through many movements. For example cameras have evolved from not have a screen to having a high definition screen on it, and also video, in essence the picture has got more in richer and not as dull.
ReplyDeletei think technology is a type of art. to delope a new tecnology you must be creative, original and interesting. these are all qualities of art, without art there is no tech. there will probably be more technological advances that will either advance or make art de-advance art's uses. i suspect that hologrphs are on the way.
ReplyDeleteI think that there might end up being a shift in the art world because of photography, but there will still be those who enjoy the classics. Someone may turn to digital painting or photography if they are terrible at realistic paintings (as I am). The point of painting is showing off your skill. It does take skill to take nice photographs, but it takes no skill to make it look like the real world. It is done effortlessly with a camera. Painters go through so much work to create realistic paintings, there is so much love (and a little hate by the end of it) and time and skill poured into the work that it is breathtaking. I think cameras make art easier. Movies kind of overwrite pictures, in my opinion. It takes much more work to make a movie, yes, but telling a story through a movie is fairly easy. Telling a story through a picture is difficult, since some people might take it a totally different way. Technology might replace the artist, but it might also enhance the artist. Only time will tell.
ReplyDelete