Is Photography REALLY Art?

[maddoc]

Sure it is, like all other craft. [ars, artis : skill method, technique, conduct, character.]

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, Frank. Little argument there. The Art Galleries agree with you!

 

[FrankS]

The winky means I was just kidding.

 

[chris000]

Photography is photography, it doesn't need to be something else as well to be worth doing.

 

[DNG]

Ummmmm

Well, I enjoy "creating images" that have balance (hopefully), and are interesting to look at (sometimes), And may even invoke emotion (at times).

Paintings are similar, sculptures are similar, Drawing are similar, etc...

But, then again.... Art is like chocolate.... you never know if someone else will like it...

Enjoy Your Art.... 😀

 

[Sparrow]

"All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music"

Walter Pater

by that he meant the dreaded ... abstract art

 

[Chris101]

No. Photography is not art. Photographers are technicians, not artists.

(Is that provocative enough?)

In Bizzaro World style, I agree with Mr. Wilson here.

On another popular British forum that Reviews Digital Photography, I got into a discussion with a friend over the term "Fine Art Print". I hate the term, because it is both condescending and arrogant. If someone else wants to think a print is fine, that's ok. But for the printmaker to pre-label it as such has a bit of conceit, eh?

So I decided that the term "Artsy Technician" should replace Fine Artist, at least where photography is concerned. The next time I get cards made, that is the title I am going to use.

 

[paulfish4570]

as long as it is not preceded by an "f ..."

 

[Chris101]

as long as it is not preceded by an "f ..."

But "artsy fartsy" rhymes, and everybody knows what it means!

 

[paulfish4570]

har! :bang:

 

[Nikon Bob]

look under the bridge...

Is that were this fellow Art lives?

Bob

 

[Benjamin]

Oh, please...






































..

 

[semilog]

Is music really art?

Well, not the music that you like.

;-P

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

This was settled a century ago. The fact that anyone feels the need to question it testifies to a need for education in history.

To the person who asked who called photography the artless art, that was Cartier-Bresson. In his later years he declared that photography was not art, he didn't like it, and that he was going to be a painter. He stopped photographing in the 1970s and spent the rest of his life producing paintings that are generally very poorly regarded. Whether he wanted to admit it or not, he was an artist as a photographer and a crappy painter.

 

[raindog61]

Where is Andres Serrano when you need him most?!?!

 

[back alley]

ok, so what's the real answer?

 

[pakeha]

Man please don`t do this DNG- QUOTE ` Well, I enjoy "creating images" that have balance (hopefully), and are interesting to look at (sometimes), And may even invoke emotion (at times). '

Those colours really mess with my eyes early in the morning - they look like this 😱

OP??🙂

 

[Jack Conrad]

If photography is art then shouldn't it be referred to as Phartography?

 

[MaxElmar]

Does it REALLY matter?

 

[lawrence]

Photography is photography, it doesn't need to be something else as well to be worth doing.

But exactly! For some reason the whole art-photography thing really bugs me. In the past twenty years or so photography has been appropriated by the art establishment to the extent that the visual/emotional qualities of a photograph are now less important than the waffle surrounding it. In other words it's no longer good enough for a photograph to exist on its own terms, it has to be validated by some kind of concept or theory which is more important than the image itself.

In the early 70s photography was seen as the poor relation of painting and I always thought how unjust that was; now that it isn't I'm nostalgic for the way things were!