Abstract: THE CLAIM that photography is or might become an art has been resisted for generations on the ground that photographs are essentially mechanical products, whereas artistic representations in forms of which painting is the paradigm engage the essentially free and imaginative human creator. Recently it has been argued that photographs are not even representations, and, a fortiori, that photography is not a representational art. This claim is so outrageous to common sense that we had better take it seriously. It seems to be founded on the contentions that representations are objects; that ideal photographs are not (in the required sense), and that they are therefore not representations. What sense of intentional can such an argument rely upon?
Publication Year: 1983
Publication Date: 1983-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 7
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot