Photography

1. In "The Ontology of the Photographic Image," Bazin says that "Originality in photography as distinct from originality in painting lies in the essentially objective character of photography" (359) Is photography really objective? If so, it acceptable for an artwork to be detached from its maker? (in this case, the photographer) Shouldn't the artist and the process of art be significant parts of the artwork, or is it only the tangible product that matters in the end when evaluating an artwork's value?

I don't think that photography is really objective. I disagree with Bazin when he says that "The personality of the photographer of the photographer enters into the proceedings only in his selection of the object to be photographed and by way of the purpose he has in mind" (359). I think those factors, the subjects, layout and proportions of the elements in the photos and basically the style of the photo, all indicate to me that photography isn't exactly objective. And I don't think it's acceptable for an artwork to be separate from its maker, because even though the process of art went through an object (the camera), the inspiration and the act of actually taking the photo came from the artist.

2. What does Kracauer mean when he states that "For in the artwork the meaning of the object takes on spatial appearance, whereas in photography the spatial apperance of an object is its meaning. The two spatial apperances-the "natural" one and that of the object permeated by cognition-are not identical" (367)? What exactly is spatial appearance?

Maybe he means that the meaning of the painted object manifests itself in its mere appearance on the canvas/paper and that the fact that the object takes up space in photos gives the object its meaning? But why? Isn't Spatial appearance is its physical presence on the canvas/paper...? Maybe the spatial appearance connected to cognition just the idea of perception...?