Stephen Shore ('The Nature of Photographs', p. 37) comments:
'Photography is inherently an analytic discipline. Where a painter starts with a blank canvas and builds a picture,a photographer starts with the messiness of the world and select a picture.'
The differences and similarities between a painting and a photograph generate many discussions. I've recenty attended a training course led by Shirley Read on exhibiting photography and during the course we touched on this subject. A view was expressed that photographers get attached to their photographs in a very particular way - there is usually an emotional story that creates the link. It was also noted that a photograph is taken in a split second whilst a painting evolves over a longer period of time.
Does this become less of a difference when we consider the whole process from pressing down the shutter release button to the final print?
'Photography is inherently an analytic discipline. Where a painter starts with a blank canvas and builds a picture,a photographer starts with the messiness of the world and select a picture.'
The differences and similarities between a painting and a photograph generate many discussions. I've recenty attended a training course led by Shirley Read on exhibiting photography and during the course we touched on this subject. A view was expressed that photographers get attached to their photographs in a very particular way - there is usually an emotional story that creates the link. It was also noted that a photograph is taken in a split second whilst a painting evolves over a longer period of time.
Does this become less of a difference when we consider the whole process from pressing down the shutter release button to the final print?
