Painting did not have to steal anything from photography but was content to contaminate it from the moment the latter was born every attempt to search for an identity. It stuck in peoples minds and especially those who were anxious about forming a photographic identity and became the point of reference and comparison. In this game painting could only have the upper hand. She already had an established identity and no matter how many doubts time brought her she knew that she would fall back on her feet without the risk of a definitive overthrow.
Painting had the advantages of technical difficulty of the finite and absolute frame of the materiality of the final product of the inherently illusory power of the result and above all it benefited from the premise of respect on the part of the public. the problem of identity by photo background removing borrowing the identity of the space they served. Areas such as science news and advertising have for many years had a settled identity in the worlds consciousness and consequently impose their own criteria and protect with their own prestige the photography that serves them. Another characteristic of the photograph its poverty was added to the difficulty of determining an identity.
A poverty that extends from its production to its function and its content. Photography is easy to produce and easier as time goes on. If the first photographers were admired by their contemporaries with their technical knowledge today no one can admire someone who does the obvious that is what the common mortal does almost every day. No matter how much we idolize her technique it will still remain an easy process. On the other hand we would like perhaps the photograph to speak to narrate to carry messages teachings and wisdom. However an honest observer sees only what he sees.