Blog Post #10

“All photographs are there to remind us of what we forget. In this - as in other ways - they are the opposite of paintings. Paintings record what the painter remembers. Because each one of us forgets different things, a photo more than a painting may change its meaning according to who is looking at it.” ~John Berger


I’m not really sure whether I agree or disagree with this. The beginning makes a lot of sense to me. Many people do take photographs to remind them of important people and moments in their life. The rush of memories and nostalgia that can flush forward when looking at childhood photos of days gone by can be almost overwhelming sometimes and bring back long forgotten emotions and memories.

However, I’m not really sure how the amount of things someone forgets would really make a difference between a photograph and a painting. Although I will say that I think a painting leaves more room for the painter to take creative liberties than a photograph does because a photograph contains at least some amount of sheer truth- an image of something that truly existed in the real world at a distinct point in time. But a painting can come completely from the imagination of the painter. Even when it is a still life or portrait painting, the painter is making images out of nothing, creating the likeness of a subject from their own personal perspective and style.

The slate rarely ever starts as a completely blank canvas for photography, while the painter has absolute power over every aspect of his or her painting, and because of this, I think paintings are a larger reflection of their creator than photographs are in general. I guess this would inherently cover the memories that are captured, since such an all-encompassing power is held by the painter.