Photography Vs Documentary Photography

425 Words1 Page

Documentary photographers valued the clarity and sharpness of the images as they believed that photography's mission is to inform rather than inspire or express personal feelings, while pictorialists believed that photography should be used as a tool to express beauty rather that the fact. The goal of documentary photographers was to promote photography to a mean capable of creating an exemplary record as a camera provided the ability to represent reality and the solid facts in an objective, unaltered manner. Pictorialists, on the other hand, regarded the sharpness and the clarity of the image as a limitation that inhibits the artistic and a self-expression. They employed the manipulation of the photographic prints as a means to express individuality. They held and believed that photographs are and should be regarded as art and treated as such by the artistic establishment. Documentary photographers such as Timothy O'Sullivan chronicled the drama of the Civil War, depicting its reality. His photographs, though, reflect an attempt to show the reality of …show more content…

Their attitudes toward photography, so different from documentary photographers, are reflected in photographs such as "Summer" 1903, by E.J. Constant Puyo, or Bradbury Mill Pond, No2,1903 by Henry Ward. The images in both photographs remind more of paintings by famous artists such as Claude Monet and Paul Cezanne, rather than photographic representations of reality. There are so blurred, and their sharpness out of focus that it is difficult to distinguish the details represented in these photographs. They depict the attitude and the emotional state of the photographer more so than they depict the reality of the landscape. Pictorialists views and works stand in direct opposition to those held by the promoters of photographic documentation as a mean for expanding the knowledge of the visible

Open Document