IS PHOTOGRAPHY ART?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo: Creativity, Etc. : One Thread

It may be a cliched question but I'm looking at my options. I am very interested in art and at the same time very interested in photography. I have read about disallusioned photographers who have taken up painting. Can I have some opinions on this. Your email would be appreciated as i don't have much time for internet. Thank you.

-- Roland (burch@wantree.com.au), December 06, 1997

Answers

Re: Is Photography Art

Give me a break! No one in the world can even agree on a definition for art. So how can anyone determine if photography is or isn't an art form. I do know that photography is a means of expressing what one feels about the world. Just like any other form of expression, "artistic" or not. If you're trying to have other people decide for you whether photography is an art form so you can tell people you are an "artist" find something else. Or you too can be the frustrated photographer who turned to painting. If on the other hand you have something you want to say about the world and your place in it, and you find photography to be the "most" expressive way for "you" to say it, then choose photography. If you're worried about whether or not people will accept your expression as art, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

-- Jef Torp (JefTorp@aol.com), December 06, 1997.

Hear hear, Jef. Photography is as much, or as little, an art form as putting graphite on paper, or oils and pigment on canvas. That wretched word "art" should be consigned to the bin, it means too much or too little.

Now if Roland is considering studying painting or photography, that is a different question. I have studied and practiced, and still do, both: photography for 20 years, painting for 7. For me, they are different, but each informs the other. Painting has this wonderful rich history spanning centuries; photography has the appearance of technical simplicity which, IMHO, makes it a harder discipline to really master. I lifetime is too short for me to do either well, but that doesn't stop me trying.

I came to painting through photography, and that worked well, for me. It may well be different for other people.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), December 07, 1997.


"IS PHOTOGRAPHY ART?"

This is a good question to start a flame war and I have argued until I am blue in the fingers in the past and have given up on it. However you did mention about photographers getting frustrated and turning to painting and all I can say is "those who can, photograph and those who can't, paint!" (my apologies to any photographers who also paint).

-- Andy Laycock (aglay@interchange.ubc.ca), December 08, 1997.

Is Photography Art?

One definition of "art" as defined by Websters "a. the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also works so produced b. (1) Fine Arts (2) one of the fine arts (3)a graphic art".

To me this definition means anything produced by your hands, be it painting, sketching, molding, etc. is art, so if you look at it in this light, photography is also art.

I have only been studying photography seriously for less than a year, but I have put everything that I have read into one massive pile and have come to the conclusion that what I produce in the darkroom is art. It may not be for some people, but for me it is as relaxing as painting is to the painter.

With photography we recreate, or try to, a feeling that we experienced at the time we pushed the shutter release. We try to convey a meaning to the viewer that captures what is happening at that precise moment. The photograph will most likely have many interpretations. This is what makes photography worth while for me. It generates discussion and opens up lines of communication between people.

I take the pictures, process my own film and develop my own photographs, so I say since it was produced by my own hands, yes photography is art.

Kevin

-- Kevin Finigan (kfinigan@swbell.net), December 08, 1997.


Is it important for photography to be art? I think it is extremely unimportant. Photography is one of many tools available to creative people. Does that make it art? The answer, IMHO, is irrelevant.

I prefer to view photography as a creative tool that shows the results of one's perceptions as translated by one's technical abilities. My mentor, Garry Winogrand, said "A photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how the camera saw a piece of time and space."

Of course, Garry wasn't interested in whether photography was an art. He was merely curious about what things looked like photographed, and so he photographed everyone and everything.

OTOH, there are others out there who use photography as a form of illustration because it is more realistic than painting. Does that make it art? Again, the answer, IMHO, is irrelevant.

I agree with the poster who said that the A-word should be consigned to the dustbin.

~mason

-- Mason Resnick (mresnick@idt.net), December 09, 1997.



out in the field, a million miles away from phones, customers, bosses, and all of the miriad distractions of the day, i rarely think to myself, "is this photo going to be art?" what i think about is the way the images lies on the ground glass, and how the forms go into the corners. i look at the light, and calculate the exposure that i know and feel and belive will give the negative the densities i need to create a print that i can be proud of. i, as i would think many if not most , photographers, dont care a whit wheter it is art or not. i really enjoy the process, the craft, the working with the medium, and if per chance i create an image that i am happy with, then that is what i am after. i look at it this way, i can spend ten dollars on the lottery for the chance to win a million , or , spend the money on film to create the million dollar photograph. the chances of donig either is slim to none, but i would rather try to make the photo, its a heck of alot more fun. photography as art? i really dont care. i just enjoy doing it.

-- MTHOMPSON (MTHOMPSON@CLINTON.NET), December 10, 1997.

The disallusioned photographers who have taken up painting (apparently to replace photography) simply found more enjoyment in painting than in photography, or found far less enjoyment in photography. And I'll bet they didn't care what the term "art" means. Do what you want to do; nevermind the meaning of the term as it is meaningless.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), February 07, 1998.

Do both...to their mutual benefit.

-- Bruce Wehman (bgwehman@snds.com), March 26, 1998.

respons to is photography are and a charge to all who are considering photography

If you are even taking the time to question whaether photography is art or not then you should not be taking up the artform at all. Photography is not about filing some artistic need, but about filling a photographic need. If you have to spend even an extra second considering whether you should or shouldn't be a picture maker, then don't be one at all. I implore all people who are considering whether they will take up photography or not to not take it up at all. Because it is too beautiful a thing to contaminate with people who are just trying to appear artistic. Please do it for the love.

-- Jeannette A. Ward (jeannette@mindspring.com), November 04, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ