the evolving photograph

Question 1 - In Higgins’ Intermedia there is a moment in the text where Higgins expresses the following about paintings, “We view paintings. What are they, after all? Expensive, handmade objects, intended to ornament the walls of the rich or, through their (or their government’s) munificence, to be shared with the large numbers of people and give them a sense of grandeur. But they do not allow any sense of dialogue.” What do we as a class make of such statement having experienced seven weeks of sculpture, paintings, architecture, etc? Specifically, what do make of Higgins’ claim “they do not allow any sense of dialogue”? What sort of dialogue is Higgins referring to – a dialogue between art and viewer or a dialogue between viewers and their opinions about the painting?

Question 2 – In Baker’s Photography’s Expanded Field Baker states, “We are dealing less with “authors” and their influence than with a structural field of new formal and cultural possibilities, all of them ratified logically by the expansion of the medium of photography.” The first half of this sentence reminds me of Roland Barthes and his “death of the author” idea, but if we are to move away from “authors” and their influence, can we really create a structural field of new formal and cultural possibilities without fully considering the authors influence? I understand the medium of photography is expanding, but perhaps it is only expanding because artists are choosing to expand, is this not the influence of the artist?