Is Photography Art?

I used to contemplate this question until I came to realize that anything can be art if that is the creator's intention. So of course, yes it is. Any work of art may be perceived subjectively, historically, and/or commercially as good/important/successful or not, but it is still art.
 
George, this was resolved 100 years ago. You're wrong, end of discussion. It amazes me that this discussion continues among amateur photographers when it is a dead issue in the world of art and has been for a VERY long time. It is akin to chemists saying that their discipline isn't really science just because 1000 years ago chemistry was regarded as a form of sorcery.
 
photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.

next question!
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
George, this was resolved 100 years ago. You're wrong, end of discussion. It amazes me that this discussion continues among amateur photographers when it is a dead issue in the world of art and has been for a VERY long time. It is akin to chemists saying that their discipline isn't really science just because 1000 years ago chemistry was regarded as a form of sorcery.
Click to expand...

When I worked in industry, chemistry was a technology. Now I'm at a college, so it's a science again (except when I'm teaching, then it's just work.) It all depends on the application.
 
aizan said:
photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.

next question!
Click to expand...

You stole my post! 😀

I always ask "is writing art?" If that fails to make the point once you point out the difference between a personal letter, a James Joyce novel, and advertisement copy, I ask:

"is painting art?" Of course, they usually say. "But what about house painting? Sign painting?" If they don't get it it's probably a lost cause.

MD
 
George Bonanno said:
Photography at its best is a craft.
Nothing more and a lot less.

However when trickery and ignorance enter into the equation then it's deemed by the visually handicapped as art.
Click to expand...
George: That argument can, and indeed has, been used in regard to painting, sculpture, music and literature (try Vermeer vs. Pollock, Rodin vs. Moore, Mozart vs. Glass, Faulkner vs...oh, hell, too many to pick there). And, before you head me off at the pass, the "mechanical reproduction" argument against photography doesn't quite cut it anymore, either, given that at least three of the above creative forms have been augmented (some might say molested, but that's an argument for another day) by technology in not-too-dissimilar ways.

Photography was a handy whipping-boy for this sort of thing once upon a time, but now, almost any medium can play.


- Barrett
 
Art is very much about how something is presented, so yes a piece of dog mess can be art as well as a photograph. The interesting aspect of this question for me is how photography stands in relation to other art.

It used to be in its shadow, photographers emulating painting for credibility, then it was used by painters, especially the impressionists to see things they’ve never seen before such a horse stride or colours in motion, frozen in time. Then it found a unique voice with the surrealists and latter the American school.

But in terms of art, it is still very early on for photography compared to painting. In terms of evolution and as an art form, where next, especially considering most people do it and that we see a multitude of clichéd, disposable and forgettable photographs every day?


www.urbanpaths.net
 
FrankS said:
I used to contemplate this question until I came to realize that anything can be art if that is the creator's intention. So of course, yes it is. Any work of art may be perceived subjectively, historically, and/or commercially as good/important/successful or not, but it is still art.
Click to expand...

I think it can be, but does not have to/need to be. I can be as much art as anything else because it can be used as just another medium, equally it can have no artistic perspective at all.

If we think of it as not art, I would ask this: if a conceptual art 'piece' were to be staged and photographed and displayed as a photograph (perhaps due to the impossibility of maintaining certain elements for long term 3D display), what would it be? Art? A photo of art?
 
Turtle said:
If we think of it as not art, I would ask this: if a conceptual art 'piece' were to be staged and photographed and displayed as a photograph (perhaps due to the impossibility of maintaining certain elements for long term 3D display), what would it be? Art? A photo of art?
Click to expand...
It depends how it is presented. In very basic terms and for the sake of categorization, if the photograph is presented in a gallery, then it's art. If it's in a newspaper, then it becomes journalism. A lot depends on context.

www.urbanpaths.net
 
Why doesn't anyone ever ask "Is Painting Art?" It is just a form graphics.

"Is drawing Art?" It is just a form of doodling.

Or "Is Sculpture Art?" Obviously, it is just a form of modeling.

A camera is like a paint brush, and film is the canvas.

Of course, you cannot do real art with a digital camera, but they are not bad for radiometric analysis.

Think I'll make some coffee now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peterm1
Who has hobbies other than photography?
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
bulevardi
bulevardi
B
How has your photography changed over the years?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
Bolo Kukus
B
caila77
letters to a young photographer - the meaning of photography
Replies
4
Views
591
Godfrey
Godfrey
CameraQuest
My first Nikon ONE
Replies
11
Views
944
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
Ororaro
Ned Bojic: SLY NYC
Replies
6
Views
2K
Ororaro
Ororaro
Back
Top Bottom