The Anti-Photograpers

Once again, we are faced with the debate of the distinction between art and photography however we are now focusing our attention upon the people behind the masterpieces. The difference between the artist and photographer is very unclear. In the beginning of the article the writer states that “for every photographer who clamors to make it as an artist there is an artist running a grave risk of turning into a photographer” this almost describes a balance between the two practices. It’s as if there is this constant change between who wants to be an artist or photographer and there is dependence on each other. Later on the essay she states that even though photography become “ ’secondary’ information” when reproduced however “art that does not depend, as Siegelaub says, on its physical presence relies heavily on photography for its credibility”. There is this reliance on one another for each other’s credibility, without the other none would be as successful as they are today. Also I feel as though Foote brings up the point that was discussed earlier in the semester about how photography brings a sense of closeness to the viewer. The photograph meets the viewer half way by the display of the image but it’s up to the viewer to analyze and understand the art. Overall I enjoyed the discussion of the possible connection between art and photography, however towards the end I thought the transition of the relations of art and photography to the idea of different types of photography and how it relates to conceptual art. I felt it drove away from the original topic that was being discussed in the earlier paragraphs and this could’ve been turned into two different essays.