The debate continues! This week’s readings continue to delve into the ontology of photography; asking one to consider if, at the very essence, photographs are unbiased reflections of nature or the artistic representation of the natural world. Bazin describes this as the “two ambitions” of art--“One, primarily aesthetic, namely the expression of spiritual reality wherein the symbol transcended its model; the other, purely psychological, namely the duplication of the world outside” (239). As we have followed the history of the debate and discussed its implications in class, I can not help to ask why there is such a desire to dichotomize photography into two distinct and opposing ontologies. I cannot make an absolute argument either way. And I would have to agree with Kracauer that “Perhaps it would be more fruitful to use the term ‘art’ in a looser way” in order to accept photographs as“…neither works of art in the traditional sense nor aesthetically indifferent products” (268). The attempt to categorize photography as purely scientific or exclusively artistic is allusive. Bazin says, “The great artists, of course, have always been able to combine the two tendencies. They have allotted to each its proper place in the hierarchy of things, holding reality at their command and molding it at will into the fabric of their art” (239). I consider a good photo to be one that portrays something that I have seen before with my own eyes, but because of the artistic ability of the photographer and the situation of the photo at a specific place and time, I see the image with a new and unique appreciation. Both authors seem to at least concede to the multiple ontologies of photography. It is hard to imagine why people were so worried about what photography was and if it should be recognized as an art form because it has become so widespread in our day and age that we are like “What’s the big deal? Photography is its own thing!” But the best way that I can understand the debate is relating it to the emergence of rap music. My dad and I still argue if rap is its own genre of music. He would say no, it is just a fad in hip hop that has no artistic merit. I, on the other hand, argue that creating a catchy beat requires musical talent and rap is a distinct art form. Perhaps it is natural for people to want to understand new inventions by categorizing them based on what is established and what they are used to. My dad and I are doing the same things with rap music as the art critics were doing to photography in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.