|
i think it is the immediacy of journalism and reportage that makes photos such as the vietnam girl burned by napalm important. the reproducibility is hjust an inherent quality of photographic images. (or most of them anyway)
those are goodquestions though toilet&bowling
painting has been around as long as humans have had pigment, which is on the order of a hundred thousand years, at least, by the earliest cave arts.
photography, the capturing of photons on light sensitive material, is nearly dead. it is just a matter of time. photography as I knew it as a kid ended the moment digital images became easy and cheap for everyone to use. polaroids, and snapshots, and film cameras will soon be as obsolete and archaic as daguerrotypes and tintypes.
this may be good for the art sense of photography though, as there are many people still using these "outdated" media to create art images.
the moving image is actually an odd topic, since there are no moving images, just a rapid succession of still images, which trick our eye into thinking we are watching actual motion.
if digital filmmaking becomes the norm, as it seems to be, then the old photographic journalistic quality of actual film will be gone too.
when it is as "easy" to create an image from the filmed elements as it is shown on 300 and on waking life, and other such, digitally produced movies, the question of what is real becomes important.
it is one thing to re-stage an event, such as the raising of the flag on iwo jima to capture an image that became iconic, and yet another thing when the actual individuyal pixels of any image have to be called into question, which is where digital imagery leaves us. (at least in the journalistic sense)
ramble ramble
|