Reading Pandora's Camera by Joan Fontcuberta

In the chapter "I knew the Spice Girls" (1) Joan Fontcuberta faces, in a time span that goes from the birth of the daguerreotype to the birth of the so-called "infographics", the alternation of photography and painting in assuming the role of the next art form to disappear.

"....In cyclical fashion, the art world regularly attends the funeral of painting, but let’s accept that this is a ploy, an excuse to talk about alleged crises and generate debate in the specialised media. After the obligatory crossing of the desert, painting is reborn with renewed vigour. The catastrophists are now announcing the death of photography.....". (1)

As in the writings of Geoffrey Batchen (read my post), Fontcuberta also analyzes the role of these forms of expression and comes to directly link painting with infographics, which can be considered, according to Fontcuberta, the new form of painting. considering photography as an intruder of another nature between these two forms of expression.

".....It can therefore be argued that, in essence, a pictorial image and a digital image are identical. There are differences in the technical modus operandi, the tools and the apparatus, but – let me say it again – their structural nature is the same...." (1) 

Fontcuberta considers photography as an intruder of another nature between these two forms of expression.

".....Considered in this light, photography would seem to be an accident of history, an anomaly, a parenthesis in what could have been expected in a foreseeable genealogy of the image. In the natural transition from painting to infographics (which can actually be thought of as computer painting)....". (1)

I totally agree, insofar as, as Fontcuberta affirms, the creative process of those who paint with the computer is practically identical to that of those who paint on canvas or engrave on a wooden board by a chisel. 

If we exclude any automatic image creation process, we can say that the electronic brush is also a brush. 

If, on the other hand, we compare these means with reality and its representation, then we find a definite role for the "camera" medium, but not for the creative use that can be made of it. 

From this point of view, even if the process and the method to realize the creation (the analogical or digital image) are completely different from the pictorial one, it is not for this reason that photography loses its artistic potential. 

It all depends on the interpretation of who has the camera in his hands and what he wants to achieve. 

If the purpose is to document reality, then it is objectivity and intellectual honesty that occupy the scene. 

"....However, what we commonly think of as photography only crystallised in the early nineteenth century, because it was precisely at that point in time that the technico-scientific culture of positivism required a process that could certify the empirical observation of nature. The advent of the camera is thus linked to notions of objectivity, truth, identity, memory, document, archive and so on.....". (1)

But if the intention is to represent one's own idea, then the creative process takes over, no matter if it is made explicit by what means.

"....The representing reality gives way to the construction of meaning....". (1)

In this regard, Jeff Wall's works are emblematic and it could be said that his art lies in creating the scene to be photographed, and what he wants to represent. The technical mastery of the artist, while very important, quite essential, as in painting and in any form of expression, takes a back seat to poetics.

(1) (Fontcuberta, Joan. Pandora's Camera: Photogr@phy After Photography. MACK. Kindle Edition.),