In the present day, film is one of the foremost media forms in the world with nearly all cultures being represented. Film is the product of many different media forms combined into one including photography, painting, music, and sculpture just to name a few. Given that, there is art if film, but an ongoing debate questions whether film itself can be conceived as an art form at all. All films at their bare minimum are photographic images being shown in a rapid succession to give the appearance of movement. André Bazin believes that photography holds a place in the category of the 'plastic arts ' along with paintings, and sculptures, in that photography is an art form. On the other hand, there are others like Roger Scruton who are confident
…show more content…
While Bazin praises photography for being the successor of painting in the plastic arts, Scruton argues how painting may be called art while photography cannot be art or even representations. He makes a clear statement in the beginning of his essay that there is a sort of representation in film albeit not a photographic one; Scruton 's essay is combatting the idea that photography is a form of representation (art). Scruton directly opposes a point that Bazin brought up writing, “photography might even be thought of as having replaced painting as a mode of visual representation” (Scruton 577). Following this Scruton believes that painting should not be held to the standard of what photography is capable of. Not all paintings are meant to be realistic representations of the world, “painting is somehow purer when it is abstract and closer to its essence as an art” (Scruton 578). Scruton emphasizes that an advantage painting has over photography is that the painted subject need not exist at any point in time, whereas in photography he says that the subject must at some point in time have existed and appeared approximately as it does in the photograph (Scruton 579). Scruton utilizes a good example of this saying, “if one finds a photograph beautiful, it is because one finds something beautiful in the subject. A painting may be beautiful, on the other hand, even when it represents an ugly thing” (Scruton
While Bazin praises photography for being the successor of painting in the plastic arts, Scruton argues how painting may be called art while photography cannot be art or even representations. He makes a clear statement in the beginning of his essay that there is a sort of representation in film albeit not a photographic one; Scruton 's essay is combatting the idea that photography is a form of representation (art). Scruton directly opposes a point that Bazin brought up writing, “photography might even be thought of as having replaced painting as a mode of visual representation” (Scruton 577). Following this Scruton believes that painting should not be held to the standard of what photography is capable of. Not all paintings are meant to be realistic representations of the world, “painting is somehow purer when it is abstract and closer to its essence as an art” (Scruton 578). Scruton emphasizes that an advantage painting has over photography is that the painted subject need not exist at any point in time, whereas in photography he says that the subject must at some point in time have existed and appeared approximately as it does in the photograph (Scruton 579). Scruton utilizes a good example of this saying, “if one finds a photograph beautiful, it is because one finds something beautiful in the subject. A painting may be beautiful, on the other hand, even when it represents an ugly thing” (Scruton