Breadth of cultivation just like photography
The journey on the contrary within a painting the fragmentation of its frame and the time of contemplation are not only permitted but often aided. At this point a fundamental difference must be pointed out The painting has materiality while the photograph does not. To add number to it as has wickedly prevailed has to do with its reproduction and not with its materiality. A photograph is but a trace. A photo can even be enlarged to the point where even this trace disappears through the huge grains or blurry pixels. The photograph is always a latent image hidden in an invisible negative in an intangible digital file and stored in a cloud or projected on a screen.
The painting encloses time in the work itself as an object. The photograph in the immaterial e-commerce photo editing trace as content. The above makes us think that if affinities were to be found at all costs it would be more effective to look for them on the side of poetry. Photography is a kind of visual poetry. Where the depicted although recognizable was not and will never be what is seen even if recognized. Just like the use of words in poetry. We understand them but outside the verse they work differently. And just as there is no reason to stare at a photograph for hours there is no need to fixate on a poem.
But it is advisable for both the photo and the lyrics to meet with them again and again. And finally poetry does not require special technical skills either. And indeed these two need it more than the other arts I therefore avoid classifying the photograph in the visual field. And only for economy I will call it image. The word photography is much more accurate. But even if I were forced to find a relative in the visual arts I would lean towards sculpture. The mode of sculptural transformation and the presence of time in it move more than painting at the limits of photography. I think it is worth quoting a few scattered thoughts that complement interrogatively the above concerns.