Is Photography Art?

[jdesigns]

At a recent community art show at the gallery I volunteer at, there was a vote for best art piece. Being curious, I looked through the votes to see if anyone voted for me. I got a couple, but there was one that made me think. It said "Photography is NOT art." I was not the only photographer there, so I know it wasn't only me that it was directed toward.

So, is Photography considered art to you?


My opinion is that it is indeed art. (Shocking, eh?) It does take talent to make a photo. From understanding how color, shutter speeds, aperture, focal length, and film affect the final image, it does take a little bit of knowledge.


Having been a photographer for a fairly long time, and always looking for a "subject" for my photo, when I look at some paintings, I just wonder "Why"?


Take for example those "artists" (And I use that term loosely) who take paint and splatter it on a canvas and call it art? To me, it's not art. It doesn't "move" me in any way, other than to walk away wondering how it is considered art.


I do understand that art is very subjective. But some of the art out there is just crap.


Thoughts?

[Paladin]

Art is like beauty; it exists only in the eye of the beholder.

The artist working with paint or ink or chalk or pencil may depict anything he can imagine. A photographer is confined to what is actually there.

The casual photographer sees something and snaps the picture. Usually with stuff in the foreground or background. Most people cannot see what the camera sees, the mind's eye filters out the extraneous, adjusts for brightness and contrast.

The camera sees everything. The art photographer has learned to see as the camera sees, not filtering out anything. The snapshotter sees a subject and snaps the picture. The photographer sees a subject, the foreground, the background, the lighting, the shadows; adjusts or waits until what he wants actually exists.

Then there is the darkroom artist, who manipulates photos beyond a little burning/dodging/cropping/contrast and/or color adjustment -- but that is not technically photography.

A half century ago my Grandfather, Tom Hacket, taught me the meaning of patience. He had a closeup photograph of a bee on a rose. Easy to take -- simply put the camera on a tripod, focus on the rose, and wait for the bee to land.

You would like the movie, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105187/ The Public Eye.

[digitalputty]

Uhhh ... yeah. How rude.

Photography is art. There are different 'levels' of it tho. I mean ... there is amatuer photography where people take photos for fun. Then ... it goes all the way up after that. Im not a photographer so ... I have no idea.

but yes ... photography IS art!

[silverspeedbuggy]

Anything creative that the creator takes time, patience, care, and love to make is art. It's not like you are going out and snapping pics and trying to pass them off as fine art. From going to a 5 year art college, I've seen that very thing happen.

Funny story that kind of illustrates this:
Some family friends of my parents were taking pictures of their oldest daughter in her first communion dress on their front porch. They were just using a simple 110 film camera that was popular in the 80s. They quickly snapped the pics and rushed off to the ceremony. The snapshots come back a week later and they notice their younger daughter is making faces in the frosted glass window next to the front door. Here they have one angelic girl in her pure white dress and their second devilish daughter making faces at her. Priceless!

The aunt of the girls sees the photos, submits them to Kodak for a photo contest. On the application it asks a ton of technical questions about the piece (settings, film type, printing specs, etc). Kodak flies their whole family in for a big dinner and ceremony and they win second place! They got a cash award and a bunch of other stuff and the snooty photographers were all ticked off! They told everyone they never claimed to be professionals, they just had a realy cute photo they wanted to share with everyone.

They have a huge print of the photo hanging in their dining room that Kodak gave them.

[FineExampl]

Anyone saying photography isn't art has obviously not seen any work by Mapplethorpe, or some rare Salvador Dali photos and filsm, whats-her-name that took the photos for Rolling Stone, etc. Even films. Can you tell me that you haven't marveled at the cinematography in more modern films like Crouching Tiger, or Pulp Fiction, etc.

As stated already...art is in the eye of the beholder. If you see it as art, it is. Although i do question alot of "found art". "Hey look at this paper cup. Isn't it purty?" Umm, sure dude.

[jcroft]

My opinion is that just about anything can be art, if the creator of it intended it to be. In other words, it's probably not art when my Mom takes a few pictures of my daughter when she goes to visit grandma. Why? Because my Mom isn't looking at it that way. She's not putting much thought into it. She's just snapping a picture. On the other hand, if I were to take that same picture (because, frankly, I'm more inclined to be artistic than my Mom is), I'd be carefully considering the composition, the lighting, the colors, the angle, and lots of other elements. Therefore, the result is more artful.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: to me, art doesn't "just happen." Art is consiously created by an artist. A great photo can "just happen," and you might consider it to be artful in nature, but I wouldn't call it art if the photographer didn't intend for it to be art.

I don't know if that makes sense, but that's my take.

[jdesigns]

Originally Posted by jcroft

Art is consiously created by an artist.

I just have to be a smartass here.

So, since I consider myself a photographer, not an artist, then I can't consider my photo's as art, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Now back to the regularly schedule thread....

[jcroft]

Blah blah.

I was trying to be all-inclusive. Whether it's a piece of music, literature, a photo, a painting, an architecturual design, a web page design, an advertisment...to me, any of these can be art or not, depening on if they were intended as such.

Another example...my 10 year old daughter has been into music since she was a baby (not surprising since he father is a jazz musician and her mother is an opera singer). When she would pound on my piano as a two year old, I didn't consider it art -- even though once in a while she'd "accidentially" play something beautiful. Now, though, she writes song lyrics, sits at the piano, and puts serious thought into how she can set her words to music. Sometimes the compositions are good and sometimes they aren't -- but they're all art, in my mind, because she consiously made an effort at creating something special (as opposed to just banging on the piano).

Maybe that clarifies it a little.

[Fowvay]

I'm a struggling artist I guess. I have always viewed the camera as a tool of expression. My aunt is a fairly decent amatuer photographer and at an early age I expressed great interest in what she was doing. She gave me some neat old books she got when she worked for Kodak. I devoured those and also read Photo and other magazines of that ilk in school.

That was untill I reached my late teens and basically dropped out of society and lost my taste for expression. I gave away my rig ( Minolta X570 and ancient Agfa). It wasn't untill the last few years that I have started wanting to get back into it.

I have a lot to say and a lot to learn but even my crappy pics have effort put into them and are intentional. So.. yes I consider my photos to be art and tend to favor photographs to paintings any day.

[Toad]

Anything beautiful is art. Plain and simple.

[jcroft]

Originally Posted by Toad

Anything beautiful is art. Plain and simple.

I can't get with this definition. "Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. If I think a Picasso is ugly, does that make it not art? I say no -- it's still art because Pablo consciously created it as such.

Likewise, if I took a dump on my living room floor and it made a neat pattern, would it be art? I say no -- it's not art, because I wasn't trying to make art, i was just relieving myself. Now, if you thoughtfully come up with a process by which you can poop in complex spiral patterns and then execute it with the intention of making something beautiful, then that's art.

[kaiimac]

Well, to be completely cliche....

Webster's dictionary defines art as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

So, yes, photography is art...unless the picture is taken by accident.

[jcroft]

Originally Posted by kaiimac

Well, to be completely cliche....

Webster's dictionary defines art as "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

So, yes, photography is art...unless the picture is taken by accident.

Wow, that's pretty similar to my definition!

[Dede]

Wikipedia says YES...

Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity and/or imagination. It is a form of external expression of a person's feelings. There are many different forms of art, even though many people believe art to consist only of visual or performance art, such as painting, music, or photography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

[dgoldbe2]

Personally I do think photography counts as art.

Look at Ansel Adams work.

By the same token take a look at these pictures.

These are casual snapshots, that have been "lost" for 50 years. Some of these pictures are just as artistic as any other photographs.

Eh, some people.

[Dede]

Originally Posted by dgoldbe2

...By the same token take a look at these pictures.
These are casual snapshots, that have been "lost" for 50 years. Some of these pictures are just as artistic as any other photographs...

That's a cool site, thanks for sharing!

[yellowherbie]

Originally Posted by digitalputty

Uhhh ... yeah. How rude.

Photography is art. There are different 'levels' of it tho. I mean ... there is amatuer photography where people take photos for fun. Then ... it goes all the way up after that. Im not a photographer so ... I have no idea.

but yes ... photography IS art!

Umm.. yeah, Photography is art. Umm... Yesterday on Oprah, she was talking about her new house, and how the designers put small and big pic's of her and her man, and the dog's everywhere...

What a wack-o- for saying its not art.

[jcroft]

Originally Posted by dgoldbe2

Personally I do think photography counts as art.

Look at Ansel Adams work.

By the same token take a look at these pictures.

These are casual snapshots, that have been "lost" for 50 years. Some of these pictures are just as artistic as any other photographs.

Eh, some people.

I would say the fact that they are "causal" snapshots is irrlevant to whether or not they are art. I take TONS of casual snapshots at bars, parties, etc (see my flickr). While they are not always my best work, I still know that I activley consider the compostion, lighting, and other elements of the photo as I take it -- and therefore I consider them to be art.

Frankly, once you've taken a few photography classes, it's damn near impossible NOT to be artful about casual snapshots. It just happens.

[digitalputty]

Ahhh ... 'good' ol' deviantart...

SOME *minor* NUDITY ... and sexual suggestion - so, viewers beware. (not as in under 18 ... just minimal nudity LOL)

This guy is a GREAT photographer. Check him out >> http://lithiumpicnic.deviantart.com/ <<

Amazing gallery... worth checking out.

[Shutterbug]

Originally Posted by jdesigns

Take for example those "artists" (And I use that term loosely) who take paint and splatter it on a canvas and call it art? To me, it's not art. It doesn't "move" me in any way, other than to walk away wondering how it is considered art.


I do understand that art is very subjective. But some of the art out there is just crap.


Thoughts?

I SO agree with you on this Justin. In the Birmingham Museum of Art, huge 3 story building, amazing works and artifacts throughout, there is this one painting that pisses me off every time I see it. I avoid that room now.
Its titled "Red #5" all it is it a stretched square canvas painted red!!! Thats IT!
I have concidered painting a bright yellow canvas, same size and calling it "Yellow #7", march in and insisting it be on the wall. Thats retarded.

As far as Photography as Art....YES!!! Ask anyone who has paid a trillion bucks for an Ansel Adams. He was an artist.

I hope you take this the right way, but I feel photography belongs in the darkroom for the most part. I don't get the term "digital darkroom", what is that, I have yet to wrap my head around that one.

This is my point. I spend about 2 to 3 weeks drawing a graphite portrait for a client and feel pretty good about the time spent and know every stroke in a personal way.
But what if I were to scan the photo, click "graphite" on the effects, print it out and say, here you go, a graphite portrait and expect them to want to frame it.

Photography is in the eye, and you have an absolutely amazing eye no doubt. Digital is just the means you choose to shoot in. But in my experence, I have sold more photos that I have spent time on, totally hands on treatments, you know, shot the subject, developing the film, print, toning and tint. People want whats real from what I have noticed.

I am very confused in this world of Art for the most part, I'll never get "whimsey" and what I call "Foo Foo Chic" art.
I just offer the best of what I do, it represents me and some will like, and others won't. My world view will not match up to others and thats OK.

My take on art is, if it makes you feel better, thats art.

Just go to say....AllPosters.com, what media more than half of their inventory? Photography!

Don't back out, ever, someone will love what you have to offer.... and forget the rest

You are an Artist, trust me.