Image with Commentary
With the invention of photography in the latter half of the 19th century, photographers and artists competed to accurately describe visual reality. Photographers won and painters migrated to interpretive depictions as found in impressionism, expressionism, cubism, fauvism, etc.
Digital photography has blurred the differences between photography and painting. One technique, Intentional Camera Movement (ICM), uses camera movement, slow shutter speeds or superimposition of multiple photos to simulate vibration and objects in motion.
But isn't motion blur an artifact of photographic depiction? Don't our eyes experience moving objects without streaking or blur? Why do we find ICM aesthetically appealing as in this image of a busy anesthesiologist entering information into the anesthesia record (2015)?