Reading Discussion I

While the first chapter brought up many different points, varying from the invention of photography, the iconography of The Migrant Mother, modern/postmodern theory, and technique vs. content, what I most found interesting is how photography acts as the bridge between art and science. I am curious to see if, in the context of a photography studio-art class, we are more apt to think of photography on a content-based art-sense or if we are more likely to value technique and the documentary/scientific quality of photography. I also cannot help but wonder what we think the average public more readily-accepts photography as. While I initially want to say that I interpret photography in more of an artistic sense, I have to admit that I have a hard time accepting photography that is strictly content-based and does not exhibit an understanding of aesthetic technique. 

On a separate note, I am also intrigued about how photography very uniquely relates to concepts of truth and reality in a way every other medium (minus video) simply does not. I feel like even in today's society, where images can so easily be manipulated or faked, there is a certain psychological response to seeing a photograph that makes us trust it more than any other artistic medium. I would like to know if my classmates agree with me, or if they feel there is more suspicion around photography now. I am also curious to see if they see photography as more of an art or science, or equally caught between art and science. Lastly, I am interested in finding out if they find themselves more impressed by technically striking photography or photography that is content-based.