Has Photography Replaced Painting?

I think photography is an art form and will evolve beside painting rather than one or the other taking over. I also think that manipulation of photographs is also an art form and every bit as clever as putting oil on canvas. It is in it's infancy now with plenty of scope for development. Having said that, I still admire the skill of artists - the old masters; the impressionists; but only some modern work. I think we look at some modern 'artists' and laugh at their works, indeed most will be forgotten next week. But in ages past, there were plenty of artists who were bad and long forgotten. Selection is everything.

No, I don't think it'll replace painting. I mean artists..those of us with a burning curiousity for art and it's boat load of forms, we like to try everything. Look at me, I'm primarily a writer -- of lyrics and fiction stories..though I dabble in other types of writing occasionally too, I paint..though I don't know how well you could say I paint. I build and make things with my hands. I sketch and draw, I like make-up art..and am planning on getting more well-read into body art, filming our own movies, sewing and making clothes, clay, and into acting. For awhile now I've been learning about singing, dancing...and now to add onto it all, I'm getting more serious about photography. I love art..I love learning it, improving upon my skills. Anyone can take a picture, but not anyone can take a picture that is a true piece of art. They're all outlits for expression and all deserve attention. Because of the age we're in we have an abundance of photographers -- people are all into the digital..but I don't think the other older forms of art will die or be abandoned because of this.

no , i dont think it has changed anything painting still remain in the hearts of people and a painting today also sells much higher than a photograph no matter what . what we can say is that photography has advanced a lot with the improvement of technology with new things coming out almost everyday and new cameras and all .

Never! I think the "art" of photography has grown in such rapid extremes simply because there are so many that now have digital cameras available and can use it as a form of artistic expression at a very low cost. Used to be, in order to create something "art like" via photography you had to either have your own darkroom or pay someone to do it. With digital now it's readily available to us all and we can edit and change using computers! I don't think painting can ever be replaced. There is a talent involved that truly is a talent and not just anyone can do.

No ,even they are bouth artistic.

Certainly hope more people paint. It's alot skilled, nothing against photographers but it's the camera that does the work they just use tech and ideas. A painter has to draw the picture and use a more wider skill. This is probably why people do photography more because it's faster and quite effective but painting is better in my opinion but i do love photography. Kudos! ~Joey

Photography was always consider as an art. Oli painting is not out of style. As far as I remember black and white photography was popular. Many people now are making art using photography and photoshop. I love photography:)

yes i do think photographs have largely robbed us of the true art of painting. It is such a pitty. An artist can put real expression in to a painting that no photograph can ever capture. Immitation of life, the greatest achievement of an artist is broken in the flash of the camras eye blessed be

point and shoot cameras can't replace paintings. The first is just an exact image of the real object, but the latter is an imaginative creation which transcends lights and real objects.

No, I myself paint a lot. I am amazed by the art photography. It is not simple as you think. Getting the tones right and light, shading etc. It is really hard. I find it easy to draw than do a photo, myself. And these are not raw pictures. They edit and touch the pictures to make it look better.

DEfinitely not. But i think it works as an outlet for those who aren't talented in drawing.

I think at some point painting will come full circle. I think the introduction of digital photography is temporarily overshadowing painting in the "mainstream art" circles; combine digital photography with photo manipulation and graphic design and you have a new art form that, in it's own right, is complicated and beautiful. I think the conventional art forms like painting will eventually emerge again as "classic" and will always be respected for the talent required to produce a work of art from a blank canvas. I also think film photography, which requires a lot more knowledge than digital, will be considered an art form of it's own when my children are grown. Digital and graphic design are not easy, and definately have their place, but will never replace or duplicate that special impact that canvas and paint have.

But can't a painter do that too? I mean, just put together some hodgepodge mess of paint and call it art. And nobody can really dispute that it's art, because art can't really be defined comprehensively. Photography can be an art form. For most people taking snapshots of their vacation or their kids, I'd say, "not art." But for the person who really seeks to capture an image that makes a statement, who takes the time to manipulate the light or use the existing light to its best advantage, who has an eye for what's really beautiful and picturesque in the world...I'd say that's art. And I don't think that it has replaced or will ever replace painting- it's not intended to. It's just another addition to the various modes of artistic expression that exist. Every artist will choose their own medium.

All you can do with most ordinary photographs is stare at them—they stare back, blankly—and presently your concentration begins to fade. They stare you down. I mean, photography is all right if you don't mind looking at the world from the point of view of a paralysed cyclops—for a split second. All painting, no matter what you're painting, is abstract in that it's got to be organized. The thing with high-tech is that you always end up using scissors.

Painting is no doubt a good hobby and worth paying but consumes a lot of time, energy and the end result need not be the one which is on expected lines cause people have different leanings and meanings for an abstrct art. whereas photography is slightly simple and has varied scop[e and cheaper

No, I don't think so. Yes, many artists use the medium of photography, Internet, Photoshop et similia, but I think that if the ancient painters had known photography, they would have used it. The photography is a medium, but not all, To me it's important that artists can draw and paint the face of a person or whole landscapes, the tecnique is the most important thing. In this period I'm attending the atelier of two artists to learn to draw everything, landscapes, portraits, still life, etc., to me it's very hard and difficult, maybe in future I'll use only the photography, I don't know what I'll do in future, but it is fundamental to learn the tecnique.

Photography is a great medium for capturing moments in time and unadulterated beauty. Yet, with paintings.. it is much more difficult becaus you must create that moment and must craft beauty with each stroke. So because of the refinement that painting calls for, it will never be replaced by Photography wich cannot create something out of nothing, but can only capture and freeze something out of nothing.