painting is better than photography
Debate Rounds (3)
1) A photographer can "twist" reality by adding angles, lighting, etc.. Thereby, he creates a mood, a scene that not many people see, but one that he wants the viewer to see. It allows for creative photography, illusions, and such, the same way an artist can create intresting brush strokes.
2) One of art's main components is it's beauty, and I'm sure Pro would agree there are some beautiful photographs of nature, people, and the surreal (http://www.saatchiart.com...).
3) Photography can convey an idea or emotion the same that a painting can. I'm sure many of you have seen this photograph before, taken by Joe Rosenthal.
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal
Photographs do not have the texture that paintings have. And I am sure you would agree that no photograph compares to the feeling and soul that Leonardo da Vinci's famous Mona Lisa painting shows. With his delicate brush strokes and contrast of color.
I disagree. Texture can be found in photography, as a matter of fact, it is inherent in photography. See this article for more detail: http://ronbigelow.com...
Also, would you say that the Mona Lisa is art? If you do, have you seen it in person, or did you see a photograph of it? If what you are saying is true, then art is only looking at a subject in person, and not a copy of it. If what you are saying is false, then art is an accesible way of finding and experiencing beauty.
So, Pro, have you truly seen the "delicate brush strokes" and "contrast of color" on Lenardo's Mona Lisa? Or have you been duped by, as you claim photography is, a forgery?
You didn't seem to answer my question, but that's fine, this is the last round. I'll ask it as a hypothetical, then.
If photographs are not to be considered art, then can one really say that they experienced art by looking at a copy of it on the Internet, in their art textbook, etc.?
To respond to your argument:
1) Did you in fact "reach out and feel the bumps on the page from the paint?" If you didn't, you are not experiencing the texture of the art, per the hypothetical above. I doubt you did, as you would have set off the alarm.
2) Paint does fade over time. http://webfootpainting.com... Also, paintings cannot be stored digitally. Photographs can.
3) If you concede that photography ought to be considered art, then whether it is better or worse than a different form of art is a completely subjective opinion.
4) See above.
5) I have shown how photography can show beauty just the same as a painting.
Seeing as Pro has brought forward an affirmative statement (painting is better than photography), Pro has burden of proof: that is, she must prove her case. I must disprove it. That means I don't have to prove that photography is better than painting, I must show that painting shouldn't be valued over photography. And I have disproven Pro's points. For these reasons, vote Con.
Thank you to both Pro and to the voters or viewers that see this debate!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.