As stated in the article, the painter Gerhard Richter stated that "Many amateur photographs are more beautiful than a Cezanne" (4). Is this true, or is there some other basis on which art should be judged?
This is in some ways a valid statement, as the capability for mass production of photographs gives it the advantage of both availability and the accuracy a photograph can bring. However, painting has methods of expression that are not present in photography. Like stated in the paper, painting has an illusory ability.
What role does painting play now that technology has overtaken most of painting's roles? Is it completely obsolete, or has it simply found new reasons to exist?
In terms of practical uses, art does not have a place, and I am not sure if it ever has. Painting has always been something to contemplate, and not to be understood fully even after much observation. In this sense, painting will retain a certain function, although other forms of media will dominate pop culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment