Is photography art?

[Fiddlesticks]

Recently, I re-read an interesting article by noted photographer Guy Tal (you can read here Words Matter ). Guy talks about the tendency for people to separate photography from the arts. Even in our own forum we see this occur as the title of the forum is "Photography and the Arts". Now I believe that the meaning of this forum was to include photography into the other arts but we often see the two being spoken of as separate.

So, what is your feeling about this? Is it art or something else? If it is art, is there freedom to use artistic license in the making of a photograph?

I am very interested to hear your views on this.

Many thanks in advance,

Stix

[villagefarang]

The problem with answering your question is that Photography is not one narrowly defined thing, just as Art is not. Personally I am not concerned with the semantics or academics of photography, I just like to take pictures. I leave it to others, to label them as they wish.

I view the title of this forum as an attempt to be inclusive, allowing for various interpretations, not as an attempt to separate things.

Edited December 1, 2013 by villagefarang

[FracturedRabbit]

Photography can be art, just as painting can be art. But painting my walls is not art, neither are any of the photos that I have taken. But look at the work of the truly talented, who have used a camera or paint as their medium of expression; and there is great art to be found.

Min Thein, as always, is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ming-thein/art-and-photography_b_4297646.html

[Rupert2]

Subject is everything ?

[Fiddlesticks]

Photography can be art, just as painting can be art. But painting my walls is not art, neither are any of the photos that I have taken. But look at the work of the truly talented, who have used a camera or paint as their medium of expression; and there is great art to be found.

Min Thein, as always, is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ming-thein/art-and-photography_b_4297646.html

Really good article. Thanks for that link.

I think anyone who is an artist started with very elementary and unsophisticated efforts. But in time, the love of art captured them and they evolved into 'successful' artists. I like to consider my photos as art albeit, elementary and unsophisticated but the love for photography is there. So, FR, are your photographs art? I think you have to look at your motivation. Are you simply trying to 'store' memories or are you trying to convey what is inside of you?

I think that inside of most of us on this particular forum, our desire is to create art. It is an art that desires to capture what moves us or to tell a story in images. I think most of us also want to become better at our art.

[FracturedRabbit]

I have already said I don't consider my photos as art; I have the artistic sensibilities of a house brick.

[FracturedRabbit]

Subject is everything ?

Subject, composition, lighting, textures, the perfect moment, luck, an eye for the creative. And (if you are discussing the subject with your wife) a box full of the latest gear which you really need to acquire otherwise you can't take a decent photo....

[FiftyTwo]

Not art.

For lazy people who want to be artists but don't have the dedication or talent to learn a manual skill.

10 reasons why photography isn't an art form.

http://richardxthripp.thripp.com/2008/06/10-reasons-why-photography-sucks-and-isnt-an-art-form/

Extract

"Cant you see how dumb this is? If photography was an art form, we wouldnt have millions of pages debating the subject. It would be plain and obvious. The very existence of a debate proves that photography as art is shaky ground to stand on. You dont see anyone debating painting as an art form, or protesting the Mona Lisa as uncreative."

Edited December 1, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[villagefarang]

There may very well be individuals who wish to create art on this forum but unless someone states that desire explicitly I would not make that assumption. The notion of becoming better is also quite subjective.

How about, happier with the outcome, more pleased with the result or perhaps less confused about, what does what, on the camera or in the software. Some want to learn through study, while others want to learn through experiment, trial and error. Some may not be as interested in learning, as in the joy of doing.

I say it is up to the photographer to choose what they want and it is up to the viewer to decide what they like. Some things in life are complicated, for me, this is not one of them.

[Rupert2]

I've heard this subject come up over the years. As technicians we know lighting etc.. I am most satisfied when I hear the great photographers attribute the success of their images on their subject.

Photography is art and science - also seems correct.

[Tywais]

Interesting timing as I was just looking into this subject yesterday. Having been very active in the arts and had purchased several fine art pieces over the years, what defines art to me is the strong emotional response that it invokes. I was a VIP at the art gallery that I visited monthly and made purchases from and had the opportunity to see and hold top art pieces. One time I came into the studio and was asked if I would like to see a Rembrandt. Of course I would and they took me into a private showing room and brought it out of the safe. Set me down at a table with it and an eye loupe to examine.

I was thrilled and excited by getting this close to a Rembrandt but it was because of the artist and not an emotional response to that particular work. I didn't buy it as it didn't have that 'feel' for me. All my other pieces a strong attachment and bit of awe in the piece was all I needed.

I feel the Art of Photography is two fold. One is art in the technical sense and the photo is taken with finesse and technically very good. The 2nd, is it is done to make something more than it was originally and invokes a strong feeling about it. I've researched it as it is a very interesting area to investigate and puts one mind in motion in how to look at things with a completely different perspective.

Usually creating art from photography means to go beyond the 'take a shot' attitude and need thought and planning in constructing the piece. The below video is an example of many photography artists and their work. It is very clear that they go well beyond the street shot mentality in their production.

[Goshawk]

A very broad & open-ended question....to which i won't be giving a narrow & long-winded answer.

'Photography' is nothing more than another working medium where art can be created......either by accident or by design.

[Tywais]

Some excerpts:

2. Is there even Art in Photography?

In seeking answers to my questions, I learned that there has been a lot of debate not just about whether or not the art of photography is dying, but if we can even consider photography an art?

There has been a lot of treatises on whether it is or it isn’t. To the opposing side, the primary objection is that taking a picture of something does not create art. The mechanical process handles all the work – can a photographer capturing the image of something which is already present be considered ART?

Well, according to Tolstoy, which I know many of you guys know,

“Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and experience them.”

From that definition of art. There is no doubt for me that Photography is ART.

This brings us to my next question.

3. What makes Photography an Art?

I wanted to define art for the sake of the discussion but it would just lead to a much wider debate. So let me just quote William Faulkner.

“The aim of every artist is to arrest motion, which is life, by artificial means and hold it fixed so that a hundred years later, when a stranger looks at it, it moves again since it is life.”

No other words can define photography any better than this. So, what makes photography an art?

• Photography shows the Photographer’s Vision

It is true that when we look at a photograph, we are looking at a scene that already existed in this world and that’s just a mere image recorded. But definitely that’s not all. We are also looking at how the Photographer viewed the scenery and how the photographer chose to capture and present it to make it his art.

• It makes a Statement

More here http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/inspiration/dying-art-photography/

[Tywais]

“What is your perspective on photography being “art” ? What makes photography art if so?”

Photography can absolutely be an art form. As far as I see it, photography is simply another medium, like painting or sculpture or film, with which one can create visual images. Every time a new medium comes along there’s always a period of questioning whether or not that new medium can be classified as being “art”. For a long time, monoprints were not considered to be a true form of printmaking, and people are still trying to figure out right now where digital media is going in terms of being considered an art form.

The distinction I’d like to make here is that in my opinion, there is no visual medium that exists that is inherently art, all the time. Afterall, if that were the case, everything that is visual in the world would be deemed a work of art. Photography has a massive range of applications, and there are certainly numerous uses of photography that I would not consider to be art. This is the way it is with any other visual medium; just because something is visual does not mean that it is necessarily a work of art.

http://claralieu.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/ask-the-art-professor-is-photography-art/

[Tywais]

Regarding the comment about it being highly debated. All new media forms are debated at first until they prove themselves to be acceptable. Photography, film, has reached that point of acceptability, digital has some time to go yet. Even lots of debates using conventional media formats (painting, sculpture, etc) abound. Some may see one painting as art and another just a water color a kid could do. So the media doesn't define it but what is behind it that does and the creativity involved to produce it.

Good example is Andy Warhol - some consider his 'art' as genius, some as just junk and not art at all. Interestingly enough, many of his paintings/drawings are done from his own photographs. So he is just reproducing a photograph onto another media. Does that define that transitional piece as art or just a copy?

[canuckamuck]

Like so many discussions it comes down to how someone defines a word, in this case art.

In my world photography can be art; and in some ways it is also real. Which is something else, but not lesser.

I graduated with distinction and a bachelor of fine arts in photography. At our graduation the valedictorian, who was a painter, referred to us as and the design students as prostitutes, and her own group as serious artists.

They were serious because they smoked more pot then we did. We didn't have all the spare time they had, we had to produce actual and consistent quality work.

Edited December 1, 2013 by canuckamuck

[Fiddlesticks]

There may very well be individuals who wish to create art on this forum but unless someone states that desire explicitly I would not make that assumption. The notion of becoming better is also quite subjective.

How about, happier with the outcome, more pleased with the result or perhaps less confused about, what does what, on the camera or in the software. Some want to learn through study, while others want to learn through experiment, trial and error. Some may not be as interested in learning, as in the joy of doing.

I say it is up to the photographer to choose what they want and it is up to the viewer to decide what they like. Some things in life are complicated, for me, this is not one of them.

VF,

I hope that my question did not appear to complicate what all of us on here enjoy doing. I was really curious how many have felt an artistic itch that needed to be scratched or an artistic bent that they wished to satisfy. Are there folks here that feel that taking photographs is an artistic outlet.

I think Tywais has presented some interesting points that help to position photography as a valid art form. Speaking for myself, I have often felt the desire to express myself in an artistic way. Long ago I tried painting in oils but discovered that I was in WAY over my head. I've tried writing and felt some measure of satisfaction. But it wasn't until I began to study the works of some of the accomplished photographers, I saw an outlet for my creativity that appealed to me like no other.

So, are there others on this forum that feel that photography is a form of artistic expression and who look at their own photography in this way?

[sunshine51]

I'll go with what Goshawk posted on #12.

I reckon photography is both science & art however

whenever I think of "performance art" I can't figure out

what art has to do with living in a box naked in public

for a month of Sunday's.

Hell...what IS art anyway? A pile of AK's welded together

to form tables & chairs? The Mona Lisa was just a fat broad

with a cute smile & 1000 mile stare eyes...there's still many

women like her around today! Da Vinci was an engineer

with a hobby...painting what his head thought up...there

was no CAD/CAM software back then & he liked fat girls.

Luck plays an important role in both "art" & photography;

have a look at some of Dali's or Picasso's "art"...tell me

luck had nothing to do with them selling it...at least their

first bunch of paintings...hah! Or Bresson's first bunch

of "streets"....luck or a great gift of gab to the right people

at the right time & place. Things were slower then....and

perhaps the competition was less too....just speculation

there...none of us were around.

[Robby nz]

I have never been arty crafty in any way and the Photos I take are mainly for me, selfish that I am.

But since posting here I have looked for things that I think may interest others on here and taken photos of them to post.

However that's not the thought that prompted me to get involved in this one.

The title is "Photography and the arts" but it has evolved, degenerated (take your pick) into photography only.

I note Fiddlesticks and others have mentioned writing and painting and I have also written a whole heap of stories, long and short, over time.

So how about broadening things to include topics like "Short stories", "paintings", "Sculpture" or whatever art forms you all out there have had a go at ?

[Tywais]

The title is "Photography and the arts" but it has evolved, degenerated (take your pick) into photography only.

And it has been questioned since 2006 - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/59961-photography-and-the-arts/

[FracturedRabbit]

Interesting article about what will be an even more interesting documentary:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/11/vermeer-secret-tool-mirrors-lenses?mbid=social_retweet

Did Vermeer use a camera to create his masterpieces....?

[samuijimmy]

I think it can be art, (or form there of) or a recording of "a moment in time" , which is not necessarily art!

Have ran out of likes ... but I would agree with posts #2 and 3.... by VF and FF! to start with!

[shaggy1969]

For me a really good photograph is as equally good as a master painting or sculpture.....if it can draw me in, hold me and touch my emotions.

One particular photo that did this to me was FracturedRabbits photo of an old beggar lady on the streets of Pattaya.No joking, it put a lump in my throat.....partly because of the

pity I felt for the old lady but mostly because it made me feel like is was next to him when the photo was taken.....can't explain it really,but it always stayed in my mind,if that's not art then I don't know what is.

I have never been able to find that photo again,if you still have it FracturedRabbit could you repost it or even send me a PM with the photo.

Thanks

Shaggy

[Dancealot]

The definition suggests it can be an art, process or practise.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/photography

pho·tog·ra·phy (f-tgr-f)

n.

1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.

2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.

3. A body of photographs.

[canuckamuck]

Art is a tricky word which means different things to different people. It is open for interpretation.

Whether or not photography qualifies as art to the stuffy hoi poloy (spelling?) of society means very little to me. Photography in this age is infinitely more valuable to society than any of the other high arts. Although Facebook would be quite interesting if we could only upload sketches.

Photography is something attainable to all (perhaps why it is gets less respect) but in the hands of a few it can reach much greater heights. There are other life examples, like golf for instance. Nearly anyone can swing a club and some even get a hole in one, but it would be mad to put that person on tour, because it is very unlikely that they could do it again. A remarkable photograph is also possible, even in the hands of a monkey. But unless that monkey can produce consistently remarkable and thought provoking images, he is not officially an artist.

I like golf because every time I swing the club there is a potential I may achieve perfection. you get just enough of a taste every time that you are compelled to return. And I think photography is like that for many people. Everyday it is possible you might take that career defining image. And every once in a while you get a shot that compels you do do it again. Despite the great cost in time and equipment.

However, for the main body of shooters, photography is just this technical pursuit. Even the multitude of books that teach us how to make a better photographs have very little to say about bearing your soul. Also the majority of shooters set out on a safari to find an image, imagining that out there somewhere is the right combination of light and subject matter that can be funneled down a lens and become a great treasure on an SD card. This is a noble pursuit, but in this instance the art is God's and the photographer is the agent with the eye for discovery. Discovery and capture is a type of art too, some are infinitely better at this than the masses. But I can also see why it is disregarded in comparison to older forms of art.

Generally the people who get their work hung in Moma and such places, are photographers who assemble all of the elements (create the scene) and have a great deal of art speak to accompany their work. But is that high art or a pretentious boho game? Up to you

At this stage, perhaps I am bitter, I no longer care about whether or not something is accepted as art or if someone is an artist. I care only about the image itself, The internet and technology has brought us such a fantastic array of incredible images; the mind is overloaded. Most of these remarkable images are at least partially, the product of a newer art (post processing) rather than a traditional photo. Does that matter? Yes, it helps to define what type of an achievement it is. But it does not diminish it to me in greatness. The image is the thing now, Photography is just part of the process. There is room enough for everyone, even the purists.

[phuketrichard]

some people take picture,

others make photographs

To me photography is an art

PS: i also hold a BFA in Photography (lot of good that did me ) :-)

[Fiddlesticks]

Art is a tricky word which means different things to different people. It is open for interpretation.

Whether or not photography qualifies as art to the stuffy hoi poloy (spelling?) of society means very little to me. Photography in this age is infinitely more valuable to society than any of the other high arts. Although Facebook would be quite interesting if we could only upload sketches.

Photography is something attainable to all (perhaps why it is gets less respect) but in the hands of a few it can reach much greater heights. There are other life examples, like golf for instance. Nearly anyone can swing a club and some even get a hole in one, but it would be mad to put that person on tour, because it is very unlikely that they could do it again. A remarkable photograph is also possible, even in the hands of a monkey. But unless that monkey can produce consistently remarkable and thought provoking images, he is not officially an artist.

I like golf because every time I swing the club there is a potential I may achieve perfection. you get just enough of a taste every time that you are compelled to return. And I think photography is like that for many people. Everyday it is possible you might take that career defining image. And every once in a while you get a shot that compels you do do it again. Despite the great cost in time and equipment.

However, for the main body of shooters, photography is just this technical pursuit. Even the multitude of books that teach us how to make a better photographs have very little to say about bearing your soul. Also the majority of shooters set out on a safari to find an image, imagining that out there somewhere is the right combination of light and subject matter that can be funneled down a lens and become a great treasure on an SD card. This is a noble pursuit, but in this instance the art is God's and the photographer is the agent with the eye for discovery. Discovery and capture is a type of art too, some are infinitely better at this than the masses. But I can also see why it is disregarded in comparison to older forms of art.

Generally the people who get their work hung in Moma and such places, are photographers who assemble all of the elements (create the scene) and have a great deal of art speak to accompany their work. But is that high art or a pretentious boho game? Up to you

At this stage, perhaps I am bitter, I no longer care about whether or not something is accepted as art or if someone is an artist. I care only about the image itself, The internet and technology has brought us such a fantastic array of incredible images; the mind is overloaded. Most of these remarkable images are at least partially, the product of a newer art (post processing) rather than a traditional photo. Does that matter? Yes, it helps to define what type of an achievement it is. But it does not diminish it to me in greatness. The image is the thing now, Photography is just part of the process. There is room enough for everyone, even the purists.

canuckamuck - this is perhaps the most thoughtful and thought-provoking response I have heard to date. I can appreciate all that you had to say here. I too love my golf though I will never truly excel at it. Yes I did get the once-in-a-lifetime hole in one but that is likely never to be repeated.

I think that for many, photography begins as a technical pursuit as does anything we hope to excel at. At some point, after years of practice, the technical aspect becomes muscle (and brain) memory and we free ourselves to focus on the art.

I think the 'art' of photography comes when the photographer can imbue a two-dimensional image with a feeling or emotion. No one would argue that the Mona Lisa is art. Why is that? Is it because it is a technically good image of a woman or is it because when we look at it we are struck with the feelings of what is that faint smile about? What are those eyes trying to convey? I have the same reaction to Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl. The depth of feeling in her eyes and her expression simply captures your interest and emotions. Why is this not art simply because it is a photograph. Was McCurry just lucky? Some would say yes but it is the skill of the artist that recognized the potential of this moment and was able to capture the emotions so forcefully and complete the depth of the image in PP by adding those little touches which focus our attention where the artist intends. I am sure I will get flack for this next comment from many art purists but I can see a argument for hanging these two images side by side in the same gallery as a testimony to the artistry of both artists.

I find that today there are many many technically beautiful images being produced but there are few that have the emotional impact that elevates them to art. I believe that as the number of photographers continues to grow that we will see more and more true artists emerge and elevate this art form to the level that oils or sculptures have enjoyed for so long.

[Tywais]

Art is a tricky word which means different things to different people. It is open for interpretation.

Whether or not photography qualifies as art to the stuffy hoi poloy (spelling?) of society means very little to me. Photography in this age is infinitely more valuable to society than any of the other high arts. Although Facebook would be quite interesting if we could only upload sketches.

Photography is something attainable to all (perhaps why it is gets less respect) but in the hands of a few it can reach much greater heights. There are other life examples, like golf for instance. Nearly anyone can swing a club and some even get a hole in one, but it would be mad to put that person on tour, because it is very unlikely that they could do it again. A remarkable photograph is also possible, even in the hands of a monkey. But unless that monkey can produce consistently remarkable and thought provoking images, he is not officially an artist.

I like golf because every time I swing the club there is a potential I may achieve perfection. you get just enough of a taste every time that you are compelled to return. And I think photography is like that for many people. Everyday it is possible you might take that career defining image. And every once in a while you get a shot that compels you do do it again. Despite the great cost in time and equipment.

However, for the main body of shooters, photography is just this technical pursuit. Even the multitude of books that teach us how to make a better photographs have very little to say about bearing your soul. Also the majority of shooters set out on a safari to find an image, imagining that out there somewhere is the right combination of light and subject matter that can be funneled down a lens and become a great treasure on an SD card. This is a noble pursuit, but in this instance the art is God's and the photographer is the agent with the eye for discovery. Discovery and capture is a type of art too, some are infinitely better at this than the masses. But I can also see why it is disregarded in comparison to older forms of art.

Generally the people who get their work hung in Moma and such places, are photographers who assemble all of the elements (create the scene) and have a great deal of art speak to accompany their work. But is that high art or a pretentious boho game? Up to you

At this stage, perhaps I am bitter, I no longer care about whether or not something is accepted as art or if someone is an artist. I care only about the image itself, The internet and technology has brought us such a fantastic array of incredible images; the mind is overloaded. Most of these remarkable images are at least partially, the product of a newer art (post processing) rather than a traditional photo. Does that matter? Yes, it helps to define what type of an achievement it is. But it does not diminish it to me in greatness. The image is the thing now, Photography is just part of the process. There is room enough for everyone, even the purists.

Excellent and heart felt post.

[Tywais]

I removed some off topic posts that started getting out of hand.

[canuckamuck]

some people take picture,

others make photographs

To me photography is an art

PS: i also hold a BFA in Photography (lot of good that did me ) :-)

In a lavatory cubicle at our art college, someone had written "Bfa degree, take one" with an arrow pointing to the toilet paper dispenser.

We all knew there was some truth to it.

Edited December 5, 2013 by canuckamuck