According to Bazin, Why Was Photography Better Than Painting?

In his famous essay “What is Cinema?,” French film theorist André Bazin argued that photography was a more accurate representation of reality than painting. He believed that photography was able to capture a moment in time in a way that painting could not, and this made it a more powerful art form.

Checkout this video:

The Ontology of the Photographic Image

In his essay “The Ontology of the Photographic Image,” French critic André Bazin argues that photography is a superior form of art to painting because it has a closer relationship to reality. Bazin Criticizes the Renaissance tradition of perspective for creating an artificial distance between the viewer and the subject. This sense of distance, Bazin claims, is not present in photography, which instead captures an image “in depth.”

Bazin’s essay was published in 1947, at a time when many artists were beginning to experiment with abstraction. Some critics saw photography as a threat to painting, because it seemed to offer a more accurate representation of reality. But Bazin believed that photography and painting could coexist peacefully, because they were two different ways of representing reality.

The Medium of Photography

In “The Ontology of the Photographic Image,” Bazin claims that photography is ontologically distinct from painting because photography is more closely bound to reality. This does not mean, however, that Bazin believes that photographs are better images than paintings. Rather, Bazin thinks that each medium has its own unique strengths and weaknesses.

Bazin argues that the defining characteristic of photography is its indexicality. That is, a photograph is not a general representation of an object or scene, but is rather a specific imprint of that thing. This gives photographs a claim to verisimilitude or truth-to-life that paintings do not have. For Bazin, then, the value of photography lies in its ability to record reality in a way that painting cannot.

The indexicality of the photographic image

Bazin believed that photography was inherently superior to painting because it was an indexical medium. That is, a photograph is a direct imprint of reality, whereas a painting is an interpretation of reality. In other words, a photograph simply records what it sees, while a painting is a representation of what the artist sees.

Bazin believed that indexicality was key to understanding the power of photography. He argued that when we look at a photograph, we are actually looking at the thing itself – or at least, an exact replica of the thing. We are not looking at an artist’s interpretation of the thing. This direct relationship between the image and reality gives photography a unique power and authenticity.

The materiality of the photographic image

Bazin argued that photography was aesthetically superior to painting because it was more faithful to the material world. In other words, a photograph captures the world as it is, while a painting is an interpretation of that world. This is due in part to the fact that a photograph is taken using light, which is the same medium that makes up our world. Painting, on the other hand, uses pigments which are applied to a surface. As such, a painting is always going to be an abstraction of reality, no matter how realistic it may appear.

The temporality of the photographic image

Bazin claims that what is most valuable about the photographic image is its ability to capture a moment in time that is gone forever once the shutter closes. Photography is thus able to create images that are more realistic than paintings, which often idealize or romanticize their subjects.

The spatiality of the photographic image

In “The World as Objectless,” Hans Belting argues that Bazin’s notion of photography as an objective window onto the world stems from a mistake. Bazin, Belting claims, misunderstood the reason Daguerre’s invention was so momentous. It was not that photography freed painting from the burden of realism; rather, it introduced a new kind of objecthood into the world.

What is this new kind of objecthood? It is the objecthood of things in space, what Belting calls the “spatiality of the photographic image.” This is something that painting, as an art form, had never before been able to achieve. It is not that painting cannot represent space; it is that, prior to photography, painting could only represent space indirectly, by representing things within it. With photography, for the first time, we have an image that is itself spatial.

The haptic quality of the photographic image

According to Bazin, the haptic quality of the photographic image is what makes photography a better art form than painting. Photographs have a more tangible connection to their subject matter than paintings do, and this makes them more emotionally affecting. Painting, on the other hand, is more concerned with the formal qualities of line and color. This makes it more intellectually engaging, but less emotionally powerful.

The affective quality of the photographic image

Bazin believed that the photographic image had an affective quality that was superior to painting. He felt that this was because the photograph was more realistic and true to life.

The political potential of photography

Bazin argued that photography was aesthetically superior to painting because it was more indexical: a Photograph is not an interpretation of the world, but rather a direct impression of it. This relationship to reality gave photography a political potential that painting could never match.

The future of photography

In the early days of photography, many people saw it as a threat to painting. They thought that photography would never be able to capture the beauty and emotion of a painting. However, as time has gone on, photography has become its own art form.

Many people now believe that photography is actually better than painting. This is because photography can capture a moment in time that can never be replicated. Painting can only capture a moment in time if the artist is able to paint it perfectly from memory.

Photography is also better than painting because it can be shared with others much easier. With painting, you have to physically give the painting to someone else in order to share it. With photography, you can easily share your photos with anyone in the world with the click of a button.