Notes on the historiography and comprehensively Fragmentary world offered by Photography

The historicized methodology of the ‘meeting point’ between the pre-fixed frontal quality of sculpture and the overall appearance of painting is called as photography. So much for the aesthetic quality of mechanical reproducibility of imagery.
Photography is basically for ‘visualization’, while its predecessor painting is/was not. Thinking about photography—not merely looking at it—without reference to painterliness, is being pennywise and pound foolish. The grammar of painting is
photography’s singular genealogical ancestor as far as the way institutionalization-oflooking is concerned, while photography is like a Siamese-twin. Though photographs originated from a singular genealogical base, it is supposed to:

(a) ‘Contain’ the essence of painting (recall art history and other picture books, with reproduced photo of paintings in it, in a size which would readily disagree to the actual space that a painting defines in reality; and in turn, turn any possibility of permanent, altered space for photography as ‘ambiguous’) as well as

(b) Remain to be in-itself; both at the same. It is just like each of our DNA being an embodiment of our ancestors’ characteristics as well as claiming ourselves to be ‘independent individuals’. Or it is like the scientific-dual-character of light itself: both a particle and a wave.