Looking at Differences Between Painting and Photography

Wall, Tapies, and Goldin: Photography and Painting From the Theoretical Perspective of Susan Sontag The relationship between photography and painting, according to Susan Sontag, is that neither is really "capturing" the world that each attempts to depict. Rather they are capturing or depicting a perspective and the reality remains elusive. They are, in other words, projections of the artist's viewpoint; they are filtered through a particular zeitgeist -- and it is the zeitgeist that needs to be interpreted at root, not the painting or the picture.

Painting and photography are merely means of identifying the spirit or ideology of a particular culture in a particular time and place. [footnoteRef:1] This paper will use Sontag's theoretical framework to analyze the relationship between photography and painting by examining three different works: A Sudden Gust of Wind (1993), photographed by Jeff Wall, Composition with Figures (1945), painted by Antoni Tapies, and Misty and Jimmy Paulette in a Taxi, NYC (1991), photographed by Nan Goldin. [1: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977).] First, it is essential to understand Sontag's theory.

It may be explained thus: While painting and photography are both visual mediums, they reflect in a visual way the world around us. As Shakespeare notes in Hamlet, art acts as a mirror to reality.[footnoteRef:2] However, that artistic expression first goes through the head, eyes, ears, and heart of the artist, which contains its own lens, so to speak.

So even in a painting there is a "lens" being used and in a photograph there is a double "lens" being used -- the camera lens and the photographer's "lens" within himself that frames his worldview. Thus, both artists and both mediums are produced through the personal lens or viewpoint of the artist.

The effort is, according to Shakespeare, one in which the goal should be to reflect nature -- and on an objective level it might do that to some degree, but that objective interpretation is still subject to the subjective viewpoint of both the artist and the viewer.

This is what Sontag focuses on when she asserts that "humankind lingers unregenerately in Plato's cave, still reveling, its age-old habit, in mere images of the truth."[footnoteRef:3] Both painting and photography are "mere images of the truth" -- they are not truth or reality in themselves, or interacting on any pure level with reality; they are just interpretations or reflections -- like the shadows in Plato's cave that the prisoners of the cave take for reality because they are ignorant of the actual reality outside the cave that produces the shadows.

Sontag's argument is that while the art may be entertaining, the actual works are not what should be discussed and analyzed but the reality -- the culture, the mindset, the spirit of the times that produced these "shadows." [2: William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, 17-24.] [3: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977), 3.] Thus, whether it is Wall's Gust of Wind, Tapies' Composition, or Goldin's Misty and Jimmy, the approach should be the same: these are mere shadows passing for reality and there is a higher or separate reality responsible for producing each one.

Essentially, that is the relationship, according to Sontag. Wall's Sudden Gust of Wind, which is a photographic collage, meaning that Wall used separate images, cut them apart and pasted them together to create the sort of effect he was after, may be examined using Sontag's theory and examining the world in which Wall created this collage photograph.

First, Wall himself was a painter before he became a photographer and he indicates that both mediums, while unique, are essentially after the same thing, just doing it in their own way: that same thing is reality.[footnoteRef:4] Yet, Sontag would have one remember that the "reality" is not the image itself but the world that allows that image to be produced.

A Sudden Gust of Wind is an image that shows various figures reacting to a gust of wind as it scatters one person's papers across a field.[footnoteRef:5] The image is arresting because of its narrative quality: it catches the viewer in medias res -- or "in the middle of the action." The action depicts the lives of ordinary, unsuspecting citizens having their orderly lives (they are walking in a straight, single file line) disturbed by nature -- or reality.

The wind blows the papers everywhere, and the flat horizon amplifies the chaos of the wind-blown pages as they are scattered every which way. The characters, who are staged with precision for the camera, react as actors would to an event unfolding in front of them: their expressions and gestures convey surprise, shock, fear, helplessness.

As Baudrillard would observe, the image is showing "a radically non-objective world" in the sense that it is both a manufactured image produced using the collage method and it is also representing the personal or subjective experiences of the characters in the frame.[footnoteRef:6] In other words, Wall photographs and edits an image in order to convey a personal feeling to the viewer -- there is nothing documentary about the photograph.

It is indicative of, as Sontag's theory would show, a culture that feels the need to remind itself of its fragility, its being on the verge of catastrophe as it mechanically goes along without giving thought at all to what might happen when reality restores itself.

Interestingly, Wall's photograph depicts the essence of Sontag's main thesis when she writes that "the most grandiose result of the photographic enterprise is to give us the sense that we can hold the whole world in our heads -- as an anthology of images."[footnoteRef:7] Sontag argues that this grandiosity is a false sense of security -- for it is not reality that is being contained in the head but rather shadows, images -- falsehoods.

This same idea is conveyed in Wall's photograph as reality (the gust of wind) comes along and blows the "ideas" out of order and out of the passion of the individual in the frame -- what one thought one had is now gone; the collection of papers (like Sontag's catalogue of images that one collects) were not reality: reality is what blew them away. [4: David Shapiro, "Jeff Wall." MuseoMagazine. Web. 26 Nov 2015.] [5: Jeff Wall, "Study for 'A Sudden Gust of Wind (After Hokusai)," Tate. Web.

26 Nov 2015.] [6: Jean Baudrillard, "Photography, or the Writing of Light," The European Graduate School. Web. 28 Oct 2015.] [7: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977), 3.] Sontag continues, stating that "to photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed."[footnoteRef:8] In this sense, Wall is taking what is not his -- a scene choreographed in reality -- and sealing it up in a box (the frame), isolating it from its context (the fact that Wall the photographer hired actors to perform a scene because he wanted to capture an idea on film).

Outside of this context, the photograph adopts a new meaning with its own narrative -- and like a book it can be collected and stored on a bookshelf, or hung on a wall.

A Wall on a wall -- the surrealism of the expression indicates the point that Sontag is making: the image itself is not reality and the narrative it conveys has more to do with the artist's outlook as situated within his culture than it does with the actual reality that was photographed on that day when Wall took the picture.

Sontag's theory is that art, any kind of art, "means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge -- and, therefore, like power."[footnoteRef:9] Thus, the relationship between photography and painting, therefore, could be said to be a relationship of power.

Which one is more powerful? Both are equally capable of giving a feeling of power, as can be seen in Tapies' Composition -- and especially as in the Digital Age, the ability to mass produce images, even reproductions of paintings, makes both mediums virtually equal in what Walter Benjamin calls "presence in time and space": no longer is viewing them a matter of being where they are at a given moment.[footnoteRef:10] The Internet makes all things readily available -- one merely has to type in Wall's Gust of Wind or Tapies' Composition -- and up it comes.

Art is immediate. It is stored in the cloud. But as Sontag insists, it is not reality. What, then, is? And what can art say of it? [8: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977), 4.] [9: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977), 4.] [10: Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," Marxists.org. Web. 26 Nov 2015.] Tapies' Composition depicts an androgynous figure in the center of the canvas, hedged in on either side by anonymous twins.

Above the nameless central figure is a symbolic but abstract figure (a bird, a dove, a small person?). Conventional religious allegory would suggest that it is a bird, a symbol of the Holy Ghost, whose spiritual purity radiates from it in the form of yellow light. The two figures on either side of the central figure reverently bow their heads and close their eyes as though in prayer with the Spirit. Yet the central figure's eyes are open and the face expresses fear, worry, concern and even dread.

The source of light is behind the central figure so that he/she is more in shadow than in light. But the heads of two hedging figures reflect some of the light and as they sit somewhat higher than the central figure they project a kind of condescending tone, as though their spirituality were dwarfing the central figure, who appears to be the intended recipient of the gift of light.

However, the light does not appear to be getting through and perhaps is being stolen by the "angels" on left and right of the figure. Their satisfied expressions contrast with the unfulfilled expression of the central figure and suggest that there is some conflict between the main subject and the light that is brought by the Holy Spirit. Something is getting in the way, whether the two attendants or something inside the central figure -- some psychological or spiritual obstacle that blocks out the light.

This obstacle is what echoes the dread of Munch and the light is what echoes Van Gogh: both artists made use of impasto strokes and the same technique is evident here.[footnoteRef:11] But the subject is much more modern in the sense that the inner conflict is all the more apparent, shown in symbolic terms.[footnoteRef:12] [11: P. Cirlot, Grove Art (UK: Oxford University Press, 2009).] [12: E. Turner, "Art Review: Marble Dust & More in Miami's Antoni Tapies Exhibit," Hampton's Art Hub. Web.

26 Nov 2015.] Tapies blends the symbolist style with the abstract to create a work that focuses solely on the action rather than on the characters. The characters are not the main heart of the narrative, rather than action is. The action conveyed is one of spiritual exhaustion or spiritual loss. The personal conflict of the central character is unknown, as they subject is primarily painted in an abstract/symbolist form: we do not even know the individual's gender.

The action is what serves as the point of the painting's narrative -- the dissemination of light and the overbearing smugness of the "light-grabbers," whose faces are thrust in the face of the central figure and seem to judge him/her for not "getting" the light. The frustration apparent on the face of the central figure is the most palpable expression in the work, indicating that the subject is this frustration and the viewer is meant to feel it.

Munch's work was influenced by the Post-Impressionists and the exploration of psychological states that Munch's work does is similar to the exploration in Tapies' Composition. Munch's Scream (1893) for instance or Dance of Life (1900) both offer vibrant depictions of an unhealthy state. In Scream the central figure is in a state of mental anguish: the conditions are unknown and just as in Tapies' Composition, the reasons are not necessarily important.

What the viewer is witnessing is not reality, anyway, but merely an expression of the artist's feeling and sense towards reality as he saw it through his lens. Thus, Tapies depicts a world in which religion and spirituality is oppressive because of spiritual "leaders" who insist on getting in between the Spirit and the receiver/individual. Tapies feels that there is a tension here and shows this in his painting.

Sontag would suggest that it is something that one can certainly collect and dwell upon, but she would also insist that the reality of the problem needs to be examined, beyond the work painted by Tapies. The reality needs to be dealt with in reality -- not in an art room or in a museum or in a paper or in one's own thought. What is the reality? It is not just an image, whether painting or photograph.

As Sontag notes, "What is written about a person or an event is frankly an interpretation, as are handmade visual statements, like paintings and drawings."[footnoteRef:13] Thus, Tapies' painting is an interpretation of reality.

A photograph, however, such as one done by Nan Goldin, Sontag suggests, "do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire."[footnoteRef:14] Here, Sontag's theory wavers, as what is true for one medium should be true for the other, since both an art form, as Wall suggests, and since both attempt to give an interpretation.

In Godlin's photograph, for example, it appears clear that the viewer is seeing the world from Goldin's perspective and not from any other. Goldin is essentially daring the viewer to look through her eyes and see the world from her perspective. It is the world beyond the photograph that Goldin really dares the viewer to accept and to get to know.

The photograph is merely an invitation -- and Sontag would surely accede the point, as would Foucault, who views both mediums as art forms that do not necessarily attempt to "capture" reality -- especially if they are not of the documentary genre. Instead they can be merely representational -- interpretive -- inviting.[footnoteRef:15] [13: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977), 4.] [14: Susan Sontag, On Photography (NY: Picador, 1977), 4.] [15: Michel Foucault, "Photogenic Painting." Web.

26 Nov 2015.] Nan Goldin captures a raw, energetic visual spirit in her photography -- images of individuals outside the mainstream, persons who live in the sub-culture of the modern day world. These people are transsexuals or drug addicts, some of whom are involved in the punk music scene, others of whom are part of the underground by virtue of their "third gender" status, which Goldin applies to them. She does not photograph them as one who is reviled but rather as one who admires them and wants to be around them.

Thus, her aesthetic judgments of her subjects are never scathing or attacking: rather, she presents them as they are -- boldly, objectively, almost defiantly, with their poses, attitudes, facial expressions (the eyes staring directly into the camera and hence into the viewer's saying, "Take me as I am" as in Misty and Jimmy Paulette in a Taxi, NYC, (1991).

Misty and Jimmy, for example, directly challenge the viewer by their willingness to meet the camera's gaze unapologetically: the two drag queens in heavy makeup stare directly at the viewer with expressions of daring -- a sentiment that perfectly reflects the rebellious, radical scene of New York City in the 1990s, with its underground protests of mainstream mediocrity and disgust with the status quo.

Goldin captures in Misty and Jimmy the "sleazy" aspect of the scene (photographing them in a taxi removes all glamour and pomposity and locates the subject within a context that is stark, urban and real).

She examines through her "lens" the characteristic of the culture and shows it to be shameless, without regret, baring it all, partially clothed, but sloppily so, with undergarments exposed in an aesthetically-challenging way that projects the subject as one who does not care for pretention or the fineries of sophisticated high-life yet who also appreciates the costumes and likes to wear them.

Thus, the queens dress up in gaudy makeup and put on gold bras with white-net tops, straps falling down and bra padding exposed over the tip of the bra -- their apathy is registered in their dress, but so too is the contradictory emotion of raw energy and affirmation. The subjects of Goldin's work express these two contradictory impulses -- the ennui and the absolute determination to exist. In this sense, the mood is also one of nihilism and critical alienation.

In the expressions of Misty and Jimmy, for instance, is a look of utter indifference to the concerns of the world: they are simply moving through it. As Butler et al. state, "Drag has its own melancholia,"[footnoteRef:16] and Goldin would certainly agree with that sentiment.[footnoteRef:17] Such is the lens through which Goldin "captures" the world she inhabits. [16: Judith Butler, P. Osborne, L. Segal, "Gender as Performance: An Interview with Judith Butler," Radical Philosophy, vol. 67 (1994), 32.] [17: Elizabeth Manchester. "Nan Goldin." TATE, 2001. Web.

9 Nov 2015] But as Sontag would indicate, this "capturing" is not of reality but of shadows of reality. For example, gender identities were changing at this time with transgenders coming into the mainstream, thanks to works like Goldin's. Their "shadows" were being projected on larger and larger walls and society was prompted to turn around and look at what was generating these images. Gender theorists found it difficult to construct a female identity wholly indifferent to the meaning of sexuality and the phallus.

They argued that the problem resided in cultural imperatives foisted upon women throughout all ages.

They advocated a "radical repudiation of a culturally constructed sexuality" -- as Buter states: "If there is no radical repudiation of a culturally constructed sexuality, what is left is the question of how to acknowledge and 'do' the construction one is invariably in."[footnoteRef:18] Power dynamics played an underlying role in the "cultural construction" -- but the insurmountable obstacle loomed large -- and as Goldin's photograph suggests, it was ready to stare the public in the eye and be recognized: gender, through the lens of Golin, was alterable, subjective, and confrontational.

This obstacle was wrapped up in the mystery of womanhood and manhood. What was woman? What was man? One had to know what one wanted to "become" before one could actually become it. This mode of examining gets closer to the core of what Sontag suggests should be done with art: examining the underlying culture/reality responsible for producing it.

[18: Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (NY: Routledge, 1990), 31.] What is the world that Goldin is representing, and how does it shape her perspective? Barthes suggests that there are two planes on which the photographer is speaking to the audience, a literal and a contextual plane[footnoteRef:19] -- and in this sense, Goldin is sharing her sense of the underground world of drag queens and transgenders with the audience.

In this way, it is as Sontag states, a miniature of the world -- a slice of that underground served up cold for the mainstream. Yet, at the same time, it can be acting as Foucault and Barthes suggest -- as an interpretation of reality, as a message with multiple layers of context and literal meaning. That meaning therefore should be explored in order to keep in line with the theory of Sontag.