Photography as art

[commtrd]

I had an interesting conversation with another artist/photographer today.
He told me that photography is not art. Initially I disagreed and referenced the artistic vision. He said that true art comes from within a person and not from being really good at manipulating camera controls. Now this guy is an airbrush artist as well as a photographer. I also work with airbrush, pencil, watercolor, etc. so I can relate fully to what he was telling me. I never really considered photography as art until I got pretty heavy into it a few years ago. I still ponder just how much "art" it really is, being more technically a manipulation of light and equipment than a true artistic human endeavor. And I really do feel that photography is not true art per se. However I do seriously enjoy the challenge of composition and lighting just as much as putting pencil to paper. Although I am much more proud of my personal artwork.

What do y'all think about this? Really curious to get some thoughts on this.

 

[Ed-Gein]

no offence but if your friend feels that way i think he is an idiot. lol

maybe SOME types of photography are not much art, like i dunno, event coverage, and such, but even then it depends on the photographer. maybe sport photoraphy? that is more documenting moments and being a voyeur than directing and creating a scene. and maybe not stuff like JC penny portraits?

EDIT: let me re-address that last paragraph, it does not sit well with me. It depends on the photographer and what is is capable of bringing to the work. I suppose there could be an art in ANY form of photography.

but there is a lot of different types of photography. as there are types of painting. Painting a house is not art.

photography is not simply voyeurism, which your friend seems to think. Documenting moments in time. but the lack of a brush or pencil or clay does in no way take away from the thought and artistic nature embedded in most forms of photography. photography quite often is a very deliberate hands on effort of setting up scenes. Rather than a bush and canvas you have a sensor, lights, models, props, locations, etc.

i am an artist, not by profession, but i have always been good at drawing, painting, sculpting, carving. and i have done a ton of it. Photography in my view allows me to capture things in ways i never could before, and is my favorite medium.

it does not take more than 3 seconds on google to find photographic art, that is 100% undeniably art.

so in a nutshell, if your friend does not believe photography is art, and is himself a photographer, maybe he should re-think his method of photography, he might be able to take it to a whole new level he was not aware of.

 

[commtrd]

Some great points. It is nice to be fortunate to be able to enjoy the whole spectrum of capturing emotion no matter what the medium.

 

[Ed-Gein]

Agreed!

 

[TonyW]

I think that if something is to be considered 'Art' the interpretation of what art is must be a decision that only the individual can make.

For instance I do not subscribe to those artists who place a selection of bricks in the Tate gallery, fill a house with concrete and pull it down, cut a cow in half and preserve it in a tank of formaldehyde, place an unmade bed in a gallery or write on a tent the names of all their lovers are actually artists or that they have produced a work of art. Obviously there are many that would disagree with my view of what constitutes art

For me the answer has to be that I consider photography to be a valid art form. The assumptions made by many are that this is merely a mechanical process from exposure to print and just a record of reality. What this fails to take into account IMO is two main points.

1. A photographers visualisation of a scene and what emotion this invokes at the time of taking the photograph is hoped to stimulate a similar response in the viewer. The fact is that this visualisation can be a complete departure from the reality of the scene purely in terms of light and shadow, focus etc. While this can be argued to be a mechanical process that can be learned to capture an image only using the available resources of light is truly difficult to master.
Quote Those who wonder how photography can be considered art are typically unaware of how difficult it truly can be to take a photo that is unique and can touch and move the viewer.

2. It could be argued that painting is not art due to the fact that this is also a mechanical process which can be learned to greater or lesser extent by anybody. Mix paint, select brush, apply brush to canvas and do not be to worried about accuracy of shape form or colour as you may be able to pass it off as art. Lets face it this has been done. I seem to recall art critics hailing some abstracts as art prior to knowing they were produced by a chimp and an elephant.

Quote: Elevating reality to the level of art is the field of the skilled photographer, and the fact that many of them make it look easy is all the more evidence of how much of an art photography truly is. [FONT=&quot]

Quote: So consider this: For photography to have its place in the world of Art, it must have within it that quality of having been achieved by the hand of a competent Artist, along with the hand of a technically competent photographer. Many technical photographers do magnificent work in the way of recording what the world has, but only Artist-photographers can do work that can hold its place in Art salons and Collections.

Having said that do I consider my own photography works of art, sadly no although maybe one day. Can I paint, yes but only the house.

EDIT: Well said Ed particularly from someone who can draw and paint and recognise photography as another medium for artistic expression

[/FONT]

 

[ShaunK]

Well, Rembrant, to name just one, simply manipulated the light in the scenes he painted, but he was an artist. If he were alive today, I would like to think he would take a liking to photography in addition to painting. Art is creating a vision. When I go out to take pictures, I generally do my best work when I have an idea (ie vision) in mind of what I want to accomplish. Just because I take a picture of something external from myself deson't mean I didn't put anything of myself into that picture. "Manipulating camera controls" is as absurd as saying a painter isn't an artist becuse he "manipulates paint and brushes"...

 

[JStewart]

When a photographer composes a composition it is truly a unique perspective in my opinion. I agree that to say photography is not art is narrow minded.

 

[Bunsen Honeydew]

What is art, is a personal thing. I think a lot of today's "music" is not art, but a lot of people do think it is. Opinions are like you know what, everyone's got one. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Electromen]

If it's not art, why does the Art Institute offer a BS in Photography.

 

[CharlesVincentPhotography]

Art is what speaks when you can't portray your thoughts through words. Art speaks when the world doesn't want to listen. It is an advocate for our souls and expresses who we are.
it is a unique way to share your personal view of emotion. your own way to show whats reality. a portal into your mind for the rest of the world.

To me, art is what I was made for. That means everything I do somehow finds it's way into my art, and vice versa. Art is the pursuit of the highest level of knowlege and competency in the field of one's expertise. It is the pursuit of excellence. It is passion and heart.

Everything is art, whether it is the chair youre sitting in now, or the computer or phone your writing this from. Photography is just as much an art as any thing else.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[commtrd]

Art is what speaks when you can't portray your thoughts through words. Art speaks when the world doesn't want to listen. It is an advocate for our souls and expresses who we are.
it is a unique way to share your personal view of emotion. your own way to show whats reality. a portal into your mind for the rest of the world.

To me, art is what I was made for. That means everything I do somehow finds it's way into my art, and vice versa. Art is the pursuit of the highest level of knowlege and competency in the field of one's expertise. It is the pursuit of excellence. It is passion and heart.

Everything is art, whether it is the chair youre sitting in now, or the computer or phone your writing this from. Photography is just as much an art as any thing else.


Just my 2 cents.

Wow this is profound. Thanks. I do think it could be said that there is a responsibility that comes with the art of photography to always try to capture the emotion and tell the story as best as can be done using the medium and that therefore that just mindlessly pointing a camera at something and pushing the button should be avoided. I know that when I first got my first camera that I tended to do just that without really stopping and compositing the image in such a way that I was imparting the "vision" into the work. And as such, it was seen that the approach was just not yielding the results I was after. Of course I was experimenting with the variables (aperture, shutter, focal length, light, ISO, and composition) and that really is the only way to learn proficiency in the art. Just as a painter would need to learn the intricacies of the media being worked at the time.

I do know that the act of capturing an image is so much a part of who I am that I would die a slow death if denied the opportunity to do so. And that goes for drawing, painting, sculpture, and photography equally. So that really does afford photography the status of being "art". After all, the emotion we express through an image created is a direct reflection of who we are and the way we see things.

Thanks for the thoughts guys. Now instead of waxing poetic I think I will go out and shoot something. :smile:

 

[Pa]

Some photography is art, some is not. I can't define where the line between the two lies, but I can tell which is and which isn't (in my eye).

As much as I would like for it too, I don't think my own photography rises to the level of art. But I keep trying! :smile:

 

[Russ_]

2 people taking a photo of the same thing will get different results - so it's obviously not a science!

 

[Lurker]

He said that true art comes from within a person and not from being really good at manipulating camera controls

Ask him to show you on his camera the “point at something interesting” control.

Perhaps he got confused because there are photos (a majority of the FB snapshots for instance) that aren't “personal expression from within–art”.

If you don't care about the friendship you can tell him that you question his ability to understand art. Most artists are very, very, very reluctant in saying what is art and what isn't... art isn't supposed to be “defined” after all.

 

[Nygold]

If Photographs weren't art we wouldn't hang them on our walls.:biggrin:

 

[Chris101]

I thought this question was settled about 100 years ago.

I had an interesting conversation with another artist/photographer today.
He told me that photography is not art. Initially I disagreed and referenced the artistic vision. He said that true art comes from within a person and not from being really good at manipulating camera controls. Now this guy is an airbrush artist as well as a photographer. I also work with airbrush, pencil, watercolor, etc. so I can relate fully to what he was telling me. I never really considered photography as art until I got pretty heavy into it a few years ago. I still ponder just how much "art" it really is, being more technically a manipulation of light and equipment than a true artistic human endeavor. And I really do feel that photography is not true art per se. However I do seriously enjoy the challenge of composition and lighting just as much as putting pencil to paper. Although I am much more proud of my personal artwork.

What do y'all think about this? Really curious to get some thoughts on this.

 

[Uncle Frank]

Modern cameras are so good that novices, even little children, can take decent pictures. With hard work, most can master technique and become a craftsman. But only a few will transcend technique to become artists. It's no different that any other form of art human endeavor.

Now this guy is an airbrush artist...

And he's putting down photography?

 

[Tom Larsen]

. . . ., most can master technique and become a craftsman. But only a few will transcend technique to become artists.

Well put.

 

[pixel_a_ted]

I recall years ago reading Tolstoy's book "What is Art?" I don't remember anything from the book, but it's almost 200 pages long so there's no easy answer.:smile:

Barry

 

[Ronald M]

The art is in seeing the image, first in person and then the final product in your mind or simply visualizing an image and knowing how to get there.

Snapping a photo and hoping it turns out is not art.

Our tools are different, thats all. Now we have wonderful tools to paint on a computer screen. Paint on a screen, or paint on an easel,what`s the difference?