Photography vs Painting

 When reading the Painter's Lens, I was very intrigued to read the juxtaposition of photography with painting. Both mediums are considered an Art, one with a mechanical mother while the other birthed from the depths of human motion.

Modern society and technology led to Photography, a form of art that might have resonated with the impressionists of the time. Just like Monet's The Garden of the Princess, a photo can capture a story that can have motion and yet remain still in its forms. 

But, is the photographer providing the same sensation that someone like O'Keefe does? 

Now, O'Keefe has been quoted saying that photography has not had the influence on her paintings like people thought it did. This creates a deeper sense of distinction between photography and painting. 

Photography does have a connection with painting because it imitates perfectly what is in front of one's eyes. But the question remains as to whether it tickles the heart in the same way as O'Keefe's masterpieces. 

After a discussion in class, it seemed that there is something about painting being a bodily experience. A painter thinks through the mind/heart and paints through the hands. All being an experience that is intrinsically linked to being human. 

A photographer may be able to do the same, but they would have to capture some essence of being in efforts to gain some sensations from the masses. But a painter receives praise and recognition because there is a sense of respect for what they have conjured from their own being instead of a machine.