There have been those who have said that books are art, and I believe that can be true in reverse. Both invoke feelings in a viewer and can even change opinions. In the case of the pictures we saw most were political. There was one that was on a political issue (The Freedman's Bureau) and another showing what was happening in New York.
It is important to have relics like this from the past and they can really give a new perspective on something you thought you knew so much about. I have a question though. Does anyone think that art is often looked over in comparison to literary works when researching?
To answer your question, I believe that art is definitely being looked over in comparison to literary works when researching. I think it is mainly because art is an abstract form of expressing idea. Other than the maker, the viewers, who are trying to interpret the form of art, will not have a solid understanding of what the artist is trying to convey. That is not to say that their opinions are wrong; they will correlate, but they are missing out on some actual details that the creator is saying. Even though both images and books are art, the fact that there are lots of hidden meanings and messages under the surface of a picture is what makes it different from a book. You may argue that books are not always so concrete, but when it comes to researching, I think that books are more unequivocal due to this reason.
ReplyDelete