We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It can't be immediacy or we'd all be using Polaroid technology to satisfy that urge. When photography became a popular technology, widely adapted by the masses, it took almost four weeks from taking the picture to actually receiving it in the mail - and that was in 1888, the Brownie #2 camera cost $1 preloaded with 117 film. Eastman's Kodak's corporate motto was "You push the button, we do the rest". Up until the late seventies when that it took close to two weeks to get a roll of film developed by an outside processor, that automated machinery was developed that could open a canister, process the film, produce photographs on paper and get the film back to you in a couple of days.
Even when you consider the advent of digital photography, it still takes some time to properly download, adjust and print images that you may or may not want to keep. Admittedly not as long as three weeks, but maybe a day or two. So I think that the underlying premise of immediate gratification is kind of bogus to tell the truth.
Now, with respect to "are too lazy to learn to paint", well that is just elitist crazy talk. :>)
Photography is just another method of portraying and/or expressing a viewpoint, idea, concept or candid moment. In fact, I would posit that photography allows the artist the ability to capture the moment "in situ" if you will - a candid moment that a painter or sketch artist would never be able to properly capture or express adequately. I would point to one of the greatest images ever caught on film - "Moonrise over Herdandez, New Mexico" by Ansel Adams as an example of being able to capture that one single moment in time that a painter would never be able to replicate adequately.
Proper photography requires the same "sense" of light, movement, position, angle, perspective, colors, etc. - in short all the same tools that a painter would use to capture a scene - only the methodology is different. I would even take it one step further and say that from a technical standpoint, photography is much more representative of a true art than painting because of it's dual nature - the immediate capture of a scene that is a single moment in time or a deliberate, focused attempt to create an emotional impression in which things are staged, effects produced, etc. What is the difference between still life as a painting and still life as a photograph? I would say nothing if both were equal in presentation.
He told me painting is teaching him to see.
Is it that learning how to paint is teaching him to "see" in the sense that it is helping him create better images or is it more a case of learning how to represent what he sees?
The eye and the camera both "see" differently - the eye is seeing the subject in three dimensions and the camera is "seeing" the subject in two. There are technical ways to overcome the two dimensional problem with photography using a concept called bokeh, good aperture control and focusing. With painting, the technique is a little different because proper and correct use of perspective creates that sense of depth because it directly representing what the eye sees.
That is why I asked that question because the two concepts, while similar, are different.
There's a small store-front place in Dunwoody, Ga called Sips 'n Strokes where you bring your own wine & food and each person paints their own copy of whatever the "painting of the evening" is. An instructor takes the audience through each part of the process, with assistants helping participants as needed or requested. It's a fun evening, inexpensive, and you end the night with an original painting by your own hand. As a business model, it's a cheap startup, low materials cost, and there's nothing to refrigerate or spoil. The last night I went, we "copied" a Van Gogh and there wasn't an empty easel in the place.
I have a BFA. I studied both photography and painting at the university level and have worked in both fields professionally. Photography is easy for art majors because the big issue is composition, and they have that knocked. The digital camera does all the other work now. Painting is not easy for anyone in any way until a steep learning curve is completed. Seeing? People tend not to see what is there but to see what they THINK is there. On this law rests all of the other problems in teaching art.
My work for an archive required me to use a stupendous, on loan 8" x 10" view camera, hand held light meters and very lengthy exposures for fine detail. There was little I could do in the darkroom to fix anything idiotic I had done, composition wise, with the shot. Hence my cranky comment about digital work. I secretly like digital cameras and use them. My work, though, has never again exhibited the elegance I achieved with the ancient, hulking view camera.