Is Photography REALLY Art?

[cs_foto]

Some may or may not consider a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine as art. But the installation of the aforementioned was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts (USA) .

this is a photograph, not an installation, so the question should have been 'is it a photograph of a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine art?'

in fact you got the story all mixed up. so please have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

photography has been used as a medium by many artists, that does not make all photographs works of art, or all photographers artists.

also you might consider if by art you mean: 'Art' a word that encloses museums, institutions, what is 'socially' accepted and understood as Art

 

[Thebes]

Well... like others I thought this one was long since settled. My opinion and position:

Photography can be art. Whether it is good as photography does not matter. Whether it is good as art does not matter. That the viewer and the creator perceive it to have been created as an object of art- a thing in and of itself rather than the representation of a thing- makes it art.

Now, we can also get into whether a picture is a photograph if it wasn't printed with light... but even here either can be art.

 

[antiquark]

It's only art if lots of photoshopping and HDR is involved.

 

[Gumby]

look under the bridge...

I'll sell you that bridge... it will only cost you a three-dollar bill!

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Art exists in the mind and the soul. The medium has nothing to do with it.

 

[NDAv]

Photography is art as long it is black and white and not digital.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Art is what artists do. If that happens to be photography? So be it.

 

[FS Vontz]

Do you realize that putting part of the question in capitals does not change the fact that this question had its arse torn out long ago?