Consequently the understanding of this language is required not only by the creator which is obviously selfevident but also by the cultured receiver. This is also why even if it made sense to compare the arts to each other which I still doubt it would be relatively more interesting to spot the differences rather than the obvious affinities. Because pointing out the differences in addition to familiarity with the language also leads to the utilization of the special character of each art and the special role it can play in the history of art and the spirit. The comparison not to say the confrontation of painting and photography began and was maintained for simplistic and complex reasons.

At first the painters saw themselves losing their e-commerce photo editing clientele as the wealthy nobility and gentry preferred the ease verisimilitude and low cost of photography for their portraits. At the same time painters and a large part of society despised photography as a mechanistic medium that does not require years of practice and a range of technical skills. The position of the photographer in the social scale was for many years considerably lower than that of the painter and the photographer experienced the role of an artistpariah genre that was not born out of religion but out of science.



Over the years of course it was realized that every kind of art carries carries all the centuries of spirit that preceded it from the prehistoric caves until today. Nevertheless the long and sacred past of the painting tradition worked negatively for the position of the newly brought and technocratic photography in society. The only two possible reasons that led to the comparison and possibly the paintingphoto competition are the representation of reality and the display of parallelograms on walls. But just the wording of these reasons convinces of the pointlessness of confrontation and comparison. That is why it is more interesting to deal with the differences now.