PHOTOGRAPH AND PAINT IN MODERN ART

Interactive Relationships of Photograph and Paint in Modern Art

Table of Contents

Abstract3

Chapter 1: Introduction4

Background4

Problem Statement5

Aim of the Study6

Chapter 2: Literature Review7

Research Design32

Data Collection Method32

Keywords33

Chapter 4: Conclusion34

References38

Bibliography39

Abstract

It is frequently said that from its beginnings' photography has been locked into a clash with painting. Photography stripped away the operates that had given painting in a sooner era a utilitarian value. Though other art models were also transformed via the arrival of photographic photographs painting was placed in the extraordinary location of having its very existence challenged. The invention of photography was accompanied via keen assertions that painting was now dead and just an unwanted technique from a sooner and fewer technologically devised phase of western culture. This way of thinking approximate painting in terms of technical courses of representation is motionless operative today. Painting has to periodically vindicate itself basically as a alive and busied model of representation whether it is not to descent foul of denouncements of it being anachronistic, nostalgic, serving the cult of the person and expressivity or whatever otherwise that shall marginalise it in terms of avant garde culture.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

Photography arrived at a point in the history of European painting as shortly as Romanticism, as bottled in the turbulent fictions and exotic allegories of numbers such as Eugène Delacroix (1798-1863), was widely liked and commercially successful; realism, the painting of real-time visual experience, was conception to coalesce into an oppositional movement, championed via the brash young Gustave Courbet (1819-77). Neither of these painters saw photography as a threat to painting. They, and others later, rapidly encompassed it as a mechanism of referencing such facts as facial expression, ephemeral lamp impressions, and motion. Delacroix even wrote in his chart that 'if a man of genius must exert the daguerreotype as it ought to be accustomed, he shall lift himself to heights unknown to us'. Some painters, notably Edgar Degas, Pierre Bonnard, Edvard Munch, and Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, themselves became achieved photographers. It was quite the democratic Salon painter Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), celebrated for the scientific precision of his labour, whoever reportedly certified, on perceiving his first daguerreotype, 'From today, painting is dead.' The dread that photography would displace painting was sensed initially via those whoever, like Delaroche, interpreted painting's purpose within a justly narrow idea of visual representation. It can hardly be coincidence that a figure of the photographers whoever achieved prominence in photography's first decades were conditioned in Delaroche's studio (Gustave Le Gray, Henri Le Secq, Roger Fenton, Charles Nègre), nor that the painting-photography relationship finally appeared as the paradigmatic instance of the wider reciprocal one between art and engineering (Atheneum and Cowart, 1974).

Problem Statement

Can that mute and static medium, painting, give the viewer no matter what like the stimulation of its more technologically drew near rivals, can it compete with their vertiginous heterogeneity, with their fusion of alive and fantasy? By considering in painting the future of the medium, Gerhard Richter's works analyze this ...