In Roger Scruton's Photography and Representation the author establishes the idea that ideal photography is not art. At the same time he states that the ideal photography is not necessarily an idea that photographers should strive for, nor does it necessarily exist. However, he bases his argument on the ideal. In reviewing his article, I will take a look at why he painstakingly tries to make this distinction between ideal painting and ideal photography. His argument is based on the proposition that photographs can only represent causally, while painters create representational works of art through intentional relationships. Scruton manages to make a solid argument, but I will ultimately decide that it is incorrect to say that photographs cannot provide meaning or aesthetic value. Scruton wants to regard photography as an ideal, but quickly states that ideal photography is a logical fiction. Why is it important then? Obviously photography is a complex form of expression and the goal seems to be to derive the basic properties of photography in the simplest terms possible. However, he states that it should be clear to the reader that the concept need not exist and that if it makes claims that seem “exaggerated or false” we should not be discouraged. To me this sounds like a cop. It is not clear, at least to me, where exactly the connection between a fictional concept and reality occurs. Scruton argues that when we take an interest in photographs, it is actually an interest in the actual objects that have been photographed rather than in the photographs themselves. . He states this because he says that there is no photographic representation. He says that photography relates to the subject as it is a photo...... middle of paper...... he believes it makes photography an art, the single photo can still be considered close to an ideal photograph in sense that it is a causal relationship. Yet the medium as a whole is capable of much more than Scruton is willing to allow. I think the clear distinction lies in Scruton's argument that the causal relation of the photograph is equivalent to perceiving the object without the photograph. This is not true, because we have found distinctions in which photographs and reality can never be the same thing. There is no doubt that some of the intricacies of a fast-moving object cannot be seen with the naked eye. This brings new information to the eye. It may be a mechanical representation of what the object actually looks like, but it is a unique observation complete with its aesthetic interest. We must therefore say that photography can be art.