2 ms·
It's interesting to think that, by a combination of the grainy results and lengthy manual process involving plates and chemicals etc., photography was probably
by OJFord 3y ago
It's interesting to think that, by a combination of the grainy results and lengthy manual process involving plates and chemicals etc., photography was probably thought of so much more so as an art form, a method of rendering a picture (cf. painting, pressing), than we'd consider it today or even through C20 with less access to it (no camera phones) and it coming at greater cost & with delayed results (pre-digital).
- actionfromafar 3y agoSteam engines with bronze pistons and cylinders could have been made.
- OJFord 3y agoSorry, I don't understand the link between my comment and yours?
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoPhotography wasn't always thought of as art. https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/
- OJFord 3y agoNot fine art it says, and 'many artists and art critics still saw it as a threat', I think that's to my point. I held back from calling it 'easy painting' because I was sure someone would point out very early photography would've been as skilled and complicated, and really 'just different' rather than a quick or easy way of achieving the same.