The difference between painting and photography

Since photography appeared, painting has been the first threat. At least in the traditional documentary function, photography has surpassed the narrative function of painting with absolute advantage. So some people say that the appearance of photography has basically completely replaced the traditional function of painting. Historical painting and genre painting have now become report photography, portrait painting has become portrait photography, landscape painting has become landscape photography, and painting has been forced to redefine its tasks. It can be said that the direct fuse of modernist art is the persecution of photography. It is worth noting that some practical painting types (historical painting and genre painting, portrait painting and landscape painting) are emphasized here, or the original documentary function of painting is squeezed out.

It is true that the rise of photography is an unprecedented and extremely strong impact and subversion on the documentary function of painting, but it still won't-even can't-replace the unique efficacy and significance of painting documentary. Because the realism of photography is essentially a mechanical technology, the realistic works it produces are just plain realism and too superficial. Do not have the painter's own spiritual feelings and ideological understanding of the object. Therefore, it is impossible to dig the deep truth of the connotation of the object. Here first involves a deep-seated problem. Are what we see with the naked eye (including the characters here) completely true? Or, is that the true essence of "truth"? The answer is not absolutely yes. Van Gogh said that what we see is not necessarily true, but what we imagine is more real. So, he aimed the brush at the dream of the brain and drew another real world for us. For example, those sunflowers burning with passion, such vigorous efforts are really different from reality, but they can't be said to be untrue. That is the inner truth close to the essence. We can conclude that, strictly speaking, photography and painting documentaries are not on the same level. (Of course, we should exclude those paintings that are entirely for the purpose of thick-line documentaries. If the impressionist style is taken as the contrast, this difference is even more obvious. At first, the function of the former was limited to transforming what the naked eye saw instantly into historical image resources. When stacks of black-and-white or color photos are developed, photography achieves its preset purpose of "standing here to save photos". Of course, the latter also has such a role, but this is not its ultimate meaning. What it wants to do is to reveal the truth of the external world hidden in the appearance of things and seen by ordinary people's eyes. This truth will not be revealed on the drawing paper through colors and lines, but can be perceived by people in a hazy and multifaceted way through the guidance and communication of painters. It can be said that all schools of painting art have a mission responsibility for the above work. After the appearance of photography with superior original documentary function, painters accelerated the pace and intensity of this kind of work, because their space in the original documentary field was forcibly occupied by photography. This is a blow to some painters who lack depth and were originally satisfied with the original documentary. Therefore, it can still be said that the influence of photography contributed to the departure of a painting art.

Of course, photography does not stop at the central task of chronicles. Although it doesn't have some characteristics of painting art, we can't ignore its imitation and reference to painting in the process of development. This is the only way for a new thing. If drawing too much from painting shows the immaturity of photography, then Bresson's aesthetic view of "decisive moment" is the cultural consciousness of photography. The difference between an excellent work and an inferior work is only a tiny part. How to press the shutter on the right object at the right time requires a hunter's acumen. Otherwise, there will never be a masterpiece. Bresson turned the solidification of time into a strategy to reveal details that are easily overlooked by the naked eye. Although it is not a question of similarities and differences between photography and painting in conveying authenticity, it is already the most profound and far-reaching progress for photographic documentary. However, other photographers' exhaustive use of photographic artifacts eventually leads to giving up the benefits of media artifacts, forcing them to find a new way out at the level of concept and consciousness. Because, at this time, the emergence of automatic cameras has begun to threaten the occupational safety of photography. Just as the original documentary function of painting was dissolved at the beginning of photography, photography as an art needs a new breakthrough. The appearance of the fool camera seems to announce that the time has come when anyone can be a "photographer". Anyone can capture a wonderful and appropriate image in a casual or casual moment. Because of accidental factors, amateurs shoot better than professional photographers. Therefore, the concepts of "conceptual photography" and "postmodernism" are put forward. Under the resistance of these concepts, many things can only be called "pictures" but not "photography". This is the self-help of photography and the inevitable trend. Only by integrating with culture and consciousness and infiltrating more cultural significance can we expand its living space as an art, which is another forced escape of photography.

The invasion of photography into the original documentary function of painting and the dilemma faced by photography itself are the reasons why they constantly redefine their tasks. On the road of art, they will go deeper and deeper. Perhaps art is like this, it will never stop meeting challenges, and it needs to never stop surpassing breakthroughs. The life of art lies in creation. If you just stay in the original place, you will lose the new characteristics of art and finally be shattered and destroyed in stillness.