What do you think?

Hello everyone!

In chapter 11, I was assigned to answer question #3 under the "what do you think" questions. The questions asks, "Do you think that an observer gets more meaning from the work of an artist or of a photographer? Explain."

Personally, I believe an observer will get more meaning from the work of an artist. The work of an artist allows an observer to see how the artist portrays things in his or her mind. It allows them to see what is displayed the way the artist wants them too. A photographer on the other hand, takes of a picture of something already existing in the world. For instance, a photographer can take a picture of Aquinas hall and it will look as it stands. If an artist sat in front of Aquinas and painted, the work would come out much different. The artist would create the work the way her or she sees it through his or her eyes. Yes, a photographer can add effects, and change colors, but they can only do so much. An artist can change anything they would like in a work.

As I have been writing this and re-reading what I have written, I have thought of something. From the work of an artist, one may have to dig deeper to find the meaning behind it. The observer may think something completely different from what the artist was actually trying to portray. So, what I was thinking is that some may think that a photograph may be easier to decipher an actual meaning from. When it comes to reality, a photograph captures a moment for ;what it is, exactly as something has happened. There is less of a biased view in a photograph compared to a work of art.

As you can see, this question can be very opinionated. It really makes a person think about what gives more meaning.

I would love to know what you all think! Feel free to respond!

Liz