Do you think photography is an art?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Varley on February 20, 2008 at 17:45

The way I see it is that photography is a medium for creating imagery, a degree of science is required (more than you would need to know about mixing paints correctly or operating a paintbrush for example) but great photographs are not created by science alone but a combination with a creative/artistic mind/eye.

photography started off using complicated equipment and chemicals so few people could afford to take photographs, over the years it has become cheaper and technically easier which is a great thing for art as financially poor and/or technically 'challenged' people can create good photographs needing little more than an artistic eye.

photography still does not have the respect of other artistic areas with an attitude of 'any muppet can buy a camera and call themselves a photographer', the same is true of the ease of buying a paintbrush but people seem to ignore that small point.

photography definitely has it's place in the art world and the more people who are taking photos the more chances of seeing a 'great' photo, we just have to sort through more crap than we used to in order to find it :-(

Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on February 20, 2008 at 17:56

Beautifully expressed Mark. Thank you for your input on this subject.

When I hear of others talking about art exhibitions, rarely do you hear them talk about photography. Perhaps there is a degree of snobbery attached.

I'm a photographer who appreciates art - I wonder how many artists out there appreciate photography! Would love to hear more from them.

Jan x

Permalink Reply by Amina Bech on February 23, 2008 at 10:00

I appreciate photography! and photo based art..!

to the question;
Of course photography is art! It is many other things too, but it is definitely an art medium.

Art is something that touches you and makes you pause. If a photograph strikes you and makes you see things that you did not see before, it is an artistic view of the world.
Photography can be employed to produce an object with an artistic purpose, like many other crafts - sometimes found objects as well. Art is about first thinking through the message, then creating or locating an object to express it, independently of medium.

Permalink Reply by Paul Emmanuel on February 23, 2008 at 10:49

... [seen by the eye instead of the mind.] What an odd statement ...

What is there in life, that is only ["seen" by the eye instead of the mind]?
For me, simply to "see" anything implies an experience. What I experience is different to what someone else may experience. If I can experience something, no matter how small or insignificant, it implies that I was there to see it in the first place, perhaps remember it ... or not. Perhaps even want to forget ...

Of course I believe photography can be "art". I believe anything can be "art", just the same way as a toilet in the middle of an empty room can be "art".

As an interesting counter question for those who think of painting or sculpture or drawing as the only "high art": Why do you think that just because I make something "by hand" it makes it all my own? Am I such a genius? We all know that even the old masters of the Renaissance had workshops of assistants to "create masterpieces". Is it then the direction of the artist, the idea, the concept? Where do my ideas come from? Artists are people too, and people are products of their own time and place ...

Permalink Reply by Pete Massingham on February 23, 2008 at 11:18

Today, the question of whether photography is art is an absurd point of debate. The issue was resolved (after intense and often hostile discussion and debate in the 19th Century) in the earlier part of the 20th Century (1930's) most notably by the philosopher/critic Walter Benjamin. Yes he went against the populist thinking of the period, but the reality was that 'Modernist' photography had already been in production for several years by this time. The question has surfaced on numerous occasions since then, primarily as a consequence of reinforcing a theory or idea in another 'art form'. Education has played a significant role in this perception too. The art establishment in this country, has been appallingly slow at embracing the notion of photography as an art form, not out of a critical stance born of expertise and knowledge of photographic history, but out of ignorance and a defensive attitude over a perceived threat to the validity and authority of their own medium.
There are numerous exhibitions, discussions and publications on photography - as a social document, a fine-art practice, a craft, a technical/scientific tool etc. In fact, these perspectives have been debated since its' invention. The problem, is that many artists (and this is in no way belittling their practice) are not well informed about the role of photography in art history - a role that that predates even the invention of photography, but that utilised the very qualities that were to become photography's inherent strengths - ideas of detail, and perspectival accuracy for example.
Within photography there are different kinds of practitioners in exactly the same way that painting, drawing, sculpture, etc have different emphasis of production, and different levels of involvement. I think the question is a redundant issue, that has been debated to death between people from all sections of the creative and critical fraternity.
Photography enjoys tremendous respect from the art world. Some work is awful - shallow and vacuous, and some of it is wonderful - rich and multi layered. How is that different to any other art form? We all know of the respected critic who unknowingly defined and valued a painting as something from the modernist period, when it had in fact been made by a chimpanzee! Photography is photography. I know what that means. No-one has ever convincingly defined what art is! Everything? Nothing? Anything? Let painting be what painters want it to be, drawing be what draughtsmen want it to be, sculpture be what sculptors want it to be, and photography be what photographers want it to be. I believe and have stated elsewhere that, "tangential analysis - while fashionable, interesting, informative, or impressive - can be only speculative". I do not feel the need to justify or validate photography as a medium of choice, or art form.

Permalink Reply by Paul Emmanuel on February 23, 2008 at 13:59

I agree that this debate is old and rehashed, but it has interesting offshoots.

Maybe it shouldn't be about whether photography is art. Maybe it's more interesting to see how the different "worlds" collide.

In South Africa, which has a very small art world relatively speaking, the question of whether photography is art is incessant, and there is a lot of ignorance. Here, the boundaries are still quite entrenched between all sorts of things, like "craft" and "art" and people are threatened everywhere for many reasons but especially because of the "small size of the pie."

There has also been a lot of exploitation of photographers because of its perceived entrenchment in technical know-how and other perceptions of what it means to be one, especially by other artists. For instance, because of the technical nature of photography this makes it wonderfully open to collaboration between people, and the boundaries of "technician" and "author" are often not dealt with beforehand when starting a project, and there is a lot of ignorance around these issues. This often leads to terrible fights and resentment. Galleries, who often publish works resulting from collaborations, perpetuate these perceptions by not accrediting the photographer, out of fear of diminishing the author's persona in an uninformed audience and are not prepared to do the legwork to educate.

When I started my one project, I worked with a photographer because I couldn't capture the images myself, and I didn't have the technical know how or the equipment. I was very clearly asked "Paul, to what degree is this image mine?". This led to huge debates around authorship and intellectual property and finally a legally drawn up agreement.

I guess the point I'm making is that the old debate is old, but still relevant in odd new forms.

Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on February 23, 2008 at 19:08

I found the posted copy from a website and found it rather old-fashioned in it's take but was absolutely curious to hear if any still believed this about photography?

I realise that many jump on the bandwagon after purchasing a digital camera, suggesting that they and others can take a picture - and of course they can. What you cannot teach others, is the finer details, the 'artistic eye' as we call it.

Interesting points that have arisen so far. The talk of 'high art' as in if I made it myself, does it make me more of a genius? In my opinion, no it doesn't - it comes down to the simple take that I'm saying about photography - it's that the mind creates the artform first and then whatever form/medium we use creates and finalises the piece.

I hope that made sense to you out there and do carry on the debate - tis fabulous to hear your opinions.

Permalink Reply by Pete Massingham on February 23, 2008 at 22:07

Hay Jan. Good on you for having the initial effort and initiative for this discussion. All discussion is good. I think Paul's comments above are interesting. The political agendas in S. Africa must be very interesting in how they affect the art scene. I got very interested in 'Drum' some years ago. As a publication it featured some great social commentaries on apartheid. Pete

Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on February 23, 2008 at 22:18

Absolutley Pete, thank you for saying so :)

Permalink Reply by Amina Bech on February 24, 2008 at 9:03

A lot of photographers uses both techniques today (including me). I just wonder why you mean that digital photography "doesnt really fit in this convesation"..? Nowadays, it’s getting increasingly difficult to make this separation - and this is also something you may "play around" with.. Some work on my page that really looks digitally manipulated (for instance the "pollocks") - is not.. This is not important but...... I was just curious. ..

I could say a lot more......, but I'm struggling a bit with my english :)

Permalink Reply by Mark Varley on February 24, 2008 at 10:19

I read somewhere the other day an attitude that I am surprised I have not considered before, referring to photography but applying to anything (or so it is implied) "a piece of work becomes art when someone, anyone considers it to be".
does that 'someone' include the creator?
does it also cease to be art if someone considers it to not be?
or does this reduce 'art' to merely that which we individually deem to be beautiful / interesting / pleasant to the eye?

I think the beauty of the concept of 'art' is that it is totally in the eye of the beholder. I know how I quantify it, everyone else quantifies in their own way.

Permalink Reply by Pete Massingham on February 24, 2008 at 12:51

I'm telling you my friends, you will all end up with scrambled egg for brains trying to sort this question out. Much better to comment on specific qualities that seem to exist within each body or individual piece of work. Catch you all soon. Pete

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page