"The Ontology of the Photographyic Image" - Lauren

I found André Bazin’s article to be rather entertaining. Not only does he blatantly state that painting is inferior to photography, but he tries to make this statement in a rather ambiguous manner… which he is clearly quite unsuccessful at. This is apparent in several statements at the beginning of his article where he points out the negative aspects of painting and how photography surpasses these aspects, but then covers up his argument by stating that photography has qualities of its own that are substandard to those of paintings.

By the middle and end of his article, though, Bazin completely praises photography, making such statements as, “painting is, after all, an inferior way of making likeness” and “photography can even surpass art in creative power”. By now, Bazin seems to have gained enough confidence in his article to forcibly put forward his argument that photography is better than painting.

There are a few points in “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” that relate to earlier readings we have discussed, too. First of all, he says that “A very faithful drawing may actually tell us more about the model but despite the promptings of our critical intelligence it will never have the irrational power of the photograph to bear away our faith”. This statement first contradicts, then supports arguments made in previous readings that state that humans consider photographs to tell us more about reality than paintings ever could. Bazin’s belief that a “drawing may actually tell us more about the model” – which we can interpret as telling us more about the model’s personality and/or emotions – contradicts those arguments made by other scholars in earlier articles.

Another point that Bazin makes, that “the photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it”, helps us to understand the difference between old art and new art in the realm of space and time. What is curious here is that Bazin claims that a photograph actually “embalms time, rescuing it simply from its proper corruption”. Bazin essentially idolizes the capabilities of photography, and it was at this point in his article that I began to question his sanity… especially when he says, “photography actually contributes something to the order of natural creation instead of providing a substitute for it”.

What really gets me, though, is Bazin never actually describes what he means by “the plastic arts”, and if he considers photography such a fantastic invention, why does he doubt the possibilities of photography in the “reproduction of color”?