|
|
|
|
|
|
by _feda_
4923 days ago
|
|
|
take a gander at some art history. when photography was first introduced in France in the first half of the 1800s it sparked a longrunning debate concerning the medium's place amongst other art forms, or even whether it should be considered an art form at all. Part of the debate was centered around public figures such as Nadar (who made photographic portraits of people such as Jules Verne and Charles Baudelaire). Nadar was so reviled by some for his insistence on photography as a high art that he was the subject of ridicule in the popular press, for example in this caricature [1]. It seems odd that something so banal to us as a photo should provoke such a debate, but photography had a highly disruptive effect on the rigid, academic art world of the day, in a way reminiscent of the anger caused by the introduction of the railroad not long before, or the way some individuals have predicted 3D printing technology could disrupt manafacturing and the power structures associated with it. [1]"nadar raising photography to the height of art" by Honoré Daumier http://bit.ly/12qOL4Z |
|
|
I have. Hence my reaction to the article's unqualified introductory move "when photography was first popular it was used for x." We don't know how the author measures 'popular' or exactly what time frame he's referring to by 'when.' It's the sort of statement that needs to be framed, explained and supported, not one that can easily be taken for granted.