I was reading a book on modern art last week that included an argument that "If you gave ten people ten cameras and had them take pictures of the same landscape..." which would lead to the same pictures, unlike giving ten people paints or charcoals, which would allow for the personal touch in a way a camera couldn't.
I've been grasping after this sentiment but failed in finding just the right words. Thanks, Jen. I'm going to remember this quote.
I disagree with the arguement referenced by Chris B @1. One of my favorite things to do with my daughters is to give each of them a camera--sometimes film, sometimes digital-- when we are out and about in the world. The girls are spaced over a 10 year span in age, so their perspectives are different not just in terms of height of vantage point but in terms of personal valuation of what makes a good shot.
I completely agree with the headline. No matter how beautifully or powerfully rendered the painting would not have the same fascinating effect.
It was nice to see that headline so bluntly thrown out there because it's something I think about a lot. When you are out in the world, constantly sizing up compositions, there are a lot of interesting things that would not work as a painting, and many others that won't make a good photo.
I've been grasping after this sentiment but failed in finding just the right words. Thanks, Jen. I'm going to remember this quote.
Good one, Bean!
It was nice to see that headline so bluntly thrown out there because it's something I think about a lot. When you are out in the world, constantly sizing up compositions, there are a lot of interesting things that would not work as a painting, and many others that won't make a good photo.