[Lessismore]

Art was, before 1850, an expensive but necessary way of constructing a visual representation of a scene. In many cases, the artist made a living doing portraits, rather than the grander paintings.

It was killed by photography. It died during the last half of the 19th century. It is not just resting.

[Sam Cree]

"It was killed by photography. It died during the last half of the 19th century. It is not just resting."

I don't know, it's true that photography ended the need to send artists all over the place to record events and scenes, clearly that part of art is about dead. But art has always been much more than that, even in the days of cave paintings.

IMO, photography, an art in itself, freed and inspired fine art painting to go on and find new horizons. And computer generated art will have unforseen effects on all the previous fine arts.

It seems to me that American society, whose freedoms have allowed a standard of living and education unheard of in the past, has also allowed a pursuit of art that continues to gain strength.

[supercat]

It was killed by photography. It died during the last half of the 19th century. It is not just resting.

Modern electronic sound enhancement and reproduction has killed liver performance, until one actually goes to see a really good show.

What has changed is that there is now little need for mediocrity. It used to be that even a mediocre painter could expect to find work, since his renderings may be the best his customers can afford. Nowadays, however, if an artist can't beat the work of a cheap camera and has no ambition of doing so, there's far less value in persuing it for anything beyond personal satisfaction.