“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 disagree. I think that photography is an art like any other, and art can almost always be interpreted in a variety of ways based on the viewer's past experiences. If anything, I think that photos are more inclined to be more restrictive to interpretation than paintings. Captions often accompany photos, and these tend to influence how a person interprets a photo. A caption can add bias.


Paintings are usually only accompanied by a title and sometimes an artist statement. I also tend to see paintings as more unrealistic than a photo. No matter how accurate a painting might be, a photo is often the most exact replication of a moment and a painting is always an interpretation that is more inviting to more interpretations.... if that makes any sense?