Yesterday I realized photography is the lowest tier of hobby. It's still in the hobby category, and not a pasttime like videogames/movie watching, because it's not total passive consumption and there is some creative element involved.

However, when it comes to hobbies, it is the lowest because you are not truly creating something. You are just capturing something that already exists.

The painter can choose to paint a landscape, he takes it in, imparting his own interpretation and style. The soul of nature collides with the soul of the artist to produce something sublime. The artist can impart his own personal interpretation and make something truly unique. And when people view his work the viewer has THEIR OWN interpretation for yet another layer of subjectivity and creativity. It's no wonder people say the work is divorced from the artist. But how can this apply to photography? You show somebody a photograph, all they're seeing is a perfect recreation of something that already exists.

The photographer can impart minimal soul into his work. Maybe 1-2% soul at most. A little more if using film or filters, which is probably why film is taking off again. But even with film you are simply capturing what nature has already created. Post processing tinkering cannot escape this

"Perfect realism has produced perfect decadence." photography is still a neat hobby, it has its uses, but how do you cope with the fact that it will never have as much soul as painting? Like I said painting is artist soul colliding with nature soul, and then viewer looks at artist work and can add their own interpretation on top of that. You are missing out on not only the ability to impart your own subjective reality and touches onto something, but missing out on the ability for the viewer to to do as well. A photograph of a dog is just a photograph of a dog and the viewer will think so as well. Not the same for a painting of a dog which might stir emotion in the viewer.