regularchickens
Well-known
Of course photography is art. But as with all art, there's no accounting for taste, and the existence of tasteless art doesn't invalidate an art form.
lukitas
second hand noob
Talk about beating dead horses to a pulp. (Mmm, horse burger anyone?)
Imagine the question, but posed 200 years ago : "Is painting art?"
It could have the same range of incompatible but justifiable responses : Of course it isn't, painting is just decoration, and Of course it is, look at Rembrandt and Rubens and David.
Photography is banal, mostly kodak moments, selfies and 'look at what I had for lunch'.
Photography is boring pack shots of commodities for sale.
Photography is gooey picture postcards, cheap sentiment dripping off like runny jam.
Photography is obscene crotch snaps made on staircases by perverts.
Photography is prurient display of sensational murders and accidents.
Photography is propaganda and misdirection.
And yet, it still is art.
Excuse me for a wildly over the top analogy : it strikes me that this is very much the way Jews were discussed by nazis : 'they are greedy usurers, vulgar parvenus, corrupt intellectuals, parasitic paupers, doctrinaire communists, etc'. All of which was easy to prove, but entirely beside the point. The point is, that they are human.
The point is, photography is art. sometimes.
cheers
Imagine the question, but posed 200 years ago : "Is painting art?"
It could have the same range of incompatible but justifiable responses : Of course it isn't, painting is just decoration, and Of course it is, look at Rembrandt and Rubens and David.
Photography is banal, mostly kodak moments, selfies and 'look at what I had for lunch'.
Photography is boring pack shots of commodities for sale.
Photography is gooey picture postcards, cheap sentiment dripping off like runny jam.
Photography is obscene crotch snaps made on staircases by perverts.
Photography is prurient display of sensational murders and accidents.
Photography is propaganda and misdirection.
And yet, it still is art.
Excuse me for a wildly over the top analogy : it strikes me that this is very much the way Jews were discussed by nazis : 'they are greedy usurers, vulgar parvenus, corrupt intellectuals, parasitic paupers, doctrinaire communists, etc'. All of which was easy to prove, but entirely beside the point. The point is, that they are human.
The point is, photography is art. sometimes.
cheers
Chris101
summicronia
Pardon me for jumping in on this a week late, but of course 'photography' is not art. Photography is a set of techniques that can be used to create art (among other uses.)
If one means "Are photographs art?", then one should judge them on a case by case basis. That's what Sean O'Hagan did.
If one means "Are photographs art?", then one should judge them on a case by case basis. That's what Sean O'Hagan did.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
how long is a piece of string?
lukitas
second hand noob
It then follows, that neither painting, sculpture nor music are art. Only sets of techniques that can be used to create art. And paintings, sculptures and songs can only be judged on a case by case basis.
I can see the point, but I lived under the impression that the arts were measured according to the best that they produce. That music is an art, even though most of it is advertising jingles. That painting is an art, even though most of it is soulless kitsch. That these 'sets of techniques' are arts because they can be, that the fact that most of what these techniques produce isn't art, doesn't really matter.
In that sense, I believe photography to be an art, because some of it is really good.
I misspent quite a bit of my youth learning to draw and paint, before learning to use cameras. Drawing and painting were taught as the high road to becoming an artist. It is true that most of us ended up in advertising agencies, but we learned the techniques to become artists, not commercial illustrators. We felt betrayed, when we found out we would have to be commercial artists, that the figure of the wild-haired, piercing eyed and furrow-browed Artist was an impossible utopia.
Yes, most photography isn't art, but my photography should be. I aspire to create at least a few photos that can unreservedly deserve to be labelled 'Art'. So for me, it is self-evident that photography is art. Because some photographers are artists. Because thousands of photographers try to make art, including me. And the millions of photographers who don't make art don't really matter, just as the rude scrawlings on toilet walls don't devalue drawing.
cheers
Ranchu
Veteran
I was thinking this thread could use some examples of art, Damien Hirsh is taking pictures of pills.
https://artsy.net/article/artsy-edi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
https://artsy.net/article/artsy-edi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Photography is a process that can be used to make art. It can also be used in other ways that might not be considered art. A photo of a damaged car for an insurance adjuster is not meant to be art. Photography means "drawing with light." A drawing can be art. One can also draw a mechanical drawing, or an electronic circuit diagram. These may not necessarily be art, though they serve a purpose.
I suppose art happens when there is an intention to be creative, rather than making a literal representation of something.
I suppose art happens when there is an intention to be creative, rather than making a literal representation of something.
RichC
Well-known
So put that in your pipe...!
(Plus the "is photography art" discussion of recent posts has gone off at a bit of tangent - or rather up a cul-de-sac. See my original post...)
(Plus the "is photography art" discussion of recent posts has gone off at a bit of tangent - or rather up a cul-de-sac. See my original post...)
Kwesi
Well-known
I know Rich, I know
I tried to steer it back but the force was too strong
I was looking forward to a spirited critique/comparison of the two articles
Ranchu
Veteran
It's just some click bait the Guardian is running.
OP...sure photography is an art.
As long as there are judgments to be made, there is art in the outcome.
Sometimes there is more art in the technique or more on the creative end...but either way art is involved. If that was not the case, then one photo would be as good as the next.
As long as there are judgments to be made, there is art in the outcome.
Sometimes there is more art in the technique or more on the creative end...but either way art is involved. If that was not the case, then one photo would be as good as the next.