Reviews
Do you think photography is an art?
"There are three views of photography commonly discussed in all realms of art by critics, painters, and photographers pertaining to whether photography is beneficial to art or whether it is art at all. The first view is that photography is not an art because it is produced with a mechanical device and by chemical and physical phenomenon not by hand and inspiration. The second view is that photographs would be useful to art but should not be equal in creativeness to painting and drawing. The final theory is that because photography is so similar to lithography and etching then it would be beneficial to the arts as well as culture."
"Photography has played a controversial but an important role in the arts for the last 150 years. The question still remains whether photography is an art or a new form of documentation seen by the eye instead of the mind."
"Photography has played a controversial but an important role in the arts for the last 150 years. The question still remains whether photography is an art or a new form of documentation seen by the eye instead of the mind."
Replies to This Reviews
-
Permalink Reply by Pete Massingham on -
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
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Young on -
I personally think that a medium is a means to an end. Too often people fall into the trap that just because a painting is done in oil or something is 'handcrafted' it's - by default - 'art'... a ridiculous notion when you think about it.
Is a Carravaggio a lesser work because he - as others - might have used Camera Obscura? By many definitions they 'cheated' and thus didn't make 'art'... one only has to be in front of an original C to realise how absurd that sounds.
There are good and bad interpretations of any medium and to attribute a default conceptual value to coloured mud, particular salts or pulverised wood is naive.
More important is the debate as to what is good or bad art - irrelevant of medium.
In our messy new world this is a monster with many fuzzy edges. To define them is increasingly difficult and, I think, 'almost' unnecessary.
Good work challenges me, inspires me and/or - most importantly - helps me look at the world differently.
Irrelevent of whether it's made with honey (Vik Muniz), pollen (Wolfgang Laib), robotic metal flower heads, silver oxides, bronze or coloured mud on rag if it looks me in the eye, scares me and makes me gasp then it has done it's job.
-
Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on -
Then this brings up the question of, why do the people need to define art? Why dont we just categorise it all together and say what 'talks to you' is art.
-
Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on
-
Oh I totally believe that photography is an artform, it just gets lessened somehow on sites where paintings are the only artform for some reason. I totally agree with you Shemana, it is so much more.
Your work is amazing btw.
Jan xx
-
Permalink Reply by Pete Massingham on
-
Hello friends! I'm now reconnected to a computer again and have an opportunity to get involved in your discussions.
The question and response that always arrises for me when asked "Is photography art?" is, " tell me what art is and I'll give you an answer to your original question. Personally, I think photography is photography - not always pure and simple, undoubtedly a versatile medium, but photography none-the-less.
'Art' is really just a lazy terminology - a means of categorizing or pigeon-holing when it seems suitable or beneficial to a specific argument or debate which hasn't been thought through in detail. It's a little like the medical professions' term 'Manic Depressive.' It doesn't in reality relate to a single or specific illness or condition. And, like 'art' it is not a very useful term because of its' tendency to reduce complex situations to generalities.
It's much more useful to discuss the specifics of each medium and work in the context of when, why, and how it was made, bringing in other medium if appropriate. It's fun discussing it though if it raises the right questions.
-
Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on
-
What a beautiful answer - I totally agree with you when Doctor's say another is manic depressive, it categorises them and working as a Shiatsu Therapist , you certainly get to see that one depressive from another are so different, have various reasons for being the way they are and should be treated as such.
Thank you re others putting art to a box - that sums it up for me and is such a way of others dealing with subjects I think. Put it in a box and they are happy :)
Glad you are online again xx
-
Permalink Reply by Steven Keirstead on -
Well I'll chime in and say there may be some utility in saying certain photography is art. While I agree that defining anything as art is philosophically problematic, there are economic, legal and personal reasons why you might want to say a particular photography is art. If it's labelled "art" a photo might become more monetarily valuable than if you call it a snapshot or just a document. If a photographic nude is "art" then it's less likely to get you in legal trouble than if it's pornography. If it's "art" it may make the creator or collector feel better about producing or owning it.
-
Permalink Reply by JanMurphy on
-
Do you see artistic nude (fine art) photograpy as pornographic then?
-
Permalink Reply by Steven Keirstead on
-
Not at all, I even have a photocollage nude on my website. I'm just pointing out that some people might interpret some nude photos as pornography, even though the creator might consider them high art. The obvious example is Robert Mapplethorpe's work which was hugely controversial in the US. In Boston when it was shown at the ICA in 1990 there were protests for and against the exhibition, and some of the older city councilors tried to prevent the exhibition from opening. Interference by the US Senate scuttled the same show when it was supposed to go to the Corcoran gallery in Washington, D.C. and resulted in huge changes to the National Endowment for the Arts. I do consider his work art, and any gallery in the US or Europe would probably have no legal problems now showing his work.
Anyway, my point was if the creator intends a nude as art, even a highly erotic or sexually charged one, the photographer should have an easy time avoiding prosecution for making or exhibiting the work. Pragmatically, if it's called "art" in the US, a photo will enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, while pornography will have many more restrictions placed on it (subjects must be over 18 years old, minors must be protected from seeing it, et cetera).
That's the theory anyway. Unfortunately, some photographers nevertheless experience harassment from over-zealous law enforcement. In a case in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1995, Toni Marie Angeli took pictures of her son nude for a photo class and took her film to Zona, a professional photo lab, for development. When she went to pick up the negatives, she was shocked to be confronted by police who had been called in by a lab technician. The confrontation escalated and the police arrested her for disorderly conduct (for saying F*ck you and knocking over a lamp), and pornography charges were never instigated. She was convicted on the disorderly conduct charge.
-
Permalink Reply by Valdemar Cher & Tania Krosse on -
Sure it's art, no question about it!
-
Permalink Reply by Eurico Lino do Vale on -
The diference between Art and not art, when you decide either medium is Art or not art depends on the way this medium is used.
I Know painters that are not artists they simply paint walls.
- 1
- 2
