SciAggie
Well-known
That's what I was trying to say in post #27 - I just did a poor job. Well said Rich!
wgerrard
Veteran
Rich, you are taking a complex approach to a subject I think is very simple. I don't think asking "What's photography for...' is a very useful question. Any more than asking what music or fiction is "for".
Some people engage in taking pictures, or playing music, or writing fiction because they enjoy it. Others need some cash coming in. Other people like to look at the pictures, listen to the music, and read the stories. I don't think we need to analyze it any more. There does not need to be a "for".
I define "photographers" as everyone with a camera. I think the vast majority never consider the "intent" of their photos. They press the shutter on scenes that strike their fancy. I believe pros do the same, even if they manufacture the scene.
I reject the notion that photography is an art. It isn't. It's a craft. Some people use the tools of the craft to make art. Most people do not. It isn't important. The pictures taken by Aunt Emma at her birthday party are as valid a part of photography as the images created by any shooter with pretensions to artistry.
dave lackey
Veteran
I can't believe this thread has gone for four pages and we are back to the question about photography and art!
Hey, it is football season and the weather is wonderful! Time to get outside boys and girls and have some fun! I am...:angel:
Hey, it is football season and the weather is wonderful! Time to get outside boys and girls and have some fun! I am...:angel:
RichC
Well-known
First, let's leave art out of this thread. I never said photography is art. It can be - just as it can be many other things.
To respond to the points Bill raised:
1. Asking what photography is for is pertinent: not the immediate goal (which could be anything from a family snap to conceptual fine art) but the bigger picture - the purpose of all photography - which is to communicate, to tell the viewer something.
2. It matters not a whit if a photographer is not considering intent when taking a photograph. There is a reason behind every action we take even if we don't acknowledge it. Taking and presenting a photograph is not a random act, and thus it has intent that is communicated whether we care or not. As Roger Hicks touched on, think of photography as the visual equivalent of writing: and just like writing, taking a photograph has meaning, and the viewer - like the reader - will discern this intent or invent meaning if the photograph communicates poorly.
3. Nothing I said has any bearing whatsoever on photography as craft vs art. In fact, I agree with you that photography isn't an art. It's simply a medium of communication, to be used however the user wishes - be that Aunt Emma taking unselfconscious family snaps or a conceptual artist using the act of photography in a performance event. All uses are equally valid (what our personal preferences are is a different question).
To respond to the points Bill raised:
1. Asking what photography is for is pertinent: not the immediate goal (which could be anything from a family snap to conceptual fine art) but the bigger picture - the purpose of all photography - which is to communicate, to tell the viewer something.
2. It matters not a whit if a photographer is not considering intent when taking a photograph. There is a reason behind every action we take even if we don't acknowledge it. Taking and presenting a photograph is not a random act, and thus it has intent that is communicated whether we care or not. As Roger Hicks touched on, think of photography as the visual equivalent of writing: and just like writing, taking a photograph has meaning, and the viewer - like the reader - will discern this intent or invent meaning if the photograph communicates poorly.
3. Nothing I said has any bearing whatsoever on photography as craft vs art. In fact, I agree with you that photography isn't an art. It's simply a medium of communication, to be used however the user wishes - be that Aunt Emma taking unselfconscious family snaps or a conceptual artist using the act of photography in a performance event. All uses are equally valid (what our personal preferences are is a different question).
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In that case, writing isn't an art either. Pity about Shakespeare.
The point is, some of it is better, and some worse.
We're back to craft vs. art. Omit grammar, punctuation, capital letters...
Once again, it's the quality threshold. As soon as you notice the technical quality (good or bad) before the content, the content ain't good enough.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
Veteran
Asking what photography is "for" may be pertinent -- I don't think it is, anymore than asking what anything else is "for". Things just are. To search for their purpose is a game of projecting our values on a valueless universe. -- but that still begs the question of what is the most important single thing in photography.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger: You just condensed a lengthy tome into one very important sentence.
RichC
Well-known
No, writing isn't an art. But a piece of writing can be.
The act of writing Hamlet by Shakespeare was not art, but the typescript of Hamlet he created is art. Man Ray's photographs are art, but his taking of photographs was not art.
We need to separate action from result: the two are often conflated, but, if you think about it, the act of creating art is not usually art in itself (it can be - but only if that's a deliberate aim [i.e the performing arts] but I seriously doubt many photographers consider pressing the shutter button an art form!).
So, I can see why some photographers prefer to consider photography a craft. Personally, I dislike the term "craft" as it's loaded - often used to mean "I don't like arty-farty photography and it's not what I do!".
We really need to get over this craft vs art stuff. Let's call photography a "technique" or "skill" and be done with it...
wgerrard
Veteran
For me, a craft is a collection of skills, technique and knowledge about a set of tools used to make something. Housepainters have a craft and paint houses. Picasso had a craft and made art.
In the end, they're only words that are fun to play with, but, like always, don't change what we do. And, they shouldn't. Too much heat and not enough light usually comes from trying to decide on labels for people and what we do. Someone can say a photo is art or a piece of craftwork, but the photo stays the same.
RichC
Well-known
To communicate clearly - the essence of my long post.
Aunt Emma snapping little Sam's birthday party is taking photographs to tell you something - to communicate. The message might be obvious and deliberate ("Sorry you couldn't be here but the kids had a fun day - look!") or something subtle that Aunt Emma isn't thinking of consciously ("It's sad I can't have children") - but regardless of whether the photographer intends to convey a message, all photographs communicate.
Case study 2
Man Ray's "Object to be be Destroyed":
(Image copyright: The Museum of Modern Art, New York)
In 1923, Man Ray created this, then untitled, playful art object, a metronome with a woman's eye, as a silent witness to watch him work. However, in 1932, the object was remade, and had a title, "Object of Destruction", and instructions:
"Cut out the eye from a photograph of one who has been loved but is seen no more. Attach the eye to the pendulum of a metronome and regulate the weight to suit the tempo desired. Keep going to the limit of endurance. With a hammer well-aimed, try to destroy the whole at a single blow."
The eye that Man Ray used in this new version was that of his former lover, Lee Miller, who had just left him.
The message conveyed by the use of an eye from a photograph of Lee Miller is obvious and very deliberate - and aimed at an audience of precisely one. This art object also shows the importance of context when displaying a photograph: the original portrait of a venerated lover has become something sinister.
The most important single thing in photography is to communicate clearly...
Last edited:
But Bill, don't you think words mean something, to be picked carefully to convey information most effectively?
FrankS
Registered User
Splitting hairs over anything including semantics is a waste of time. Everyone has a slightly different (nuanced) meaning for each word anyway, depending on individual life experiences which influence and colour personal definitions.
For a simplistic example, the word "dog" would carry different baggage/meaning for a person who was terrorized as a child by a neighborhood dog than for a person who did not have such an experience.
For a simplistic example, the word "dog" would carry different baggage/meaning for a person who was terrorized as a child by a neighborhood dog than for a person who did not have such an experience.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
Second highlight: possibly, but I can't get excited about it. It's quite a recent distinction.
First highlight: even less convinced. The art has to get into the writing somewhere. If not at the writing stage, when? In other words, can you create (or select) art in the absence of art?
'Technique' also stems from techne, normally translated impartially as art or craft...
Cheers,
R.
daninjc
Well-known
Really? I find ambiguous photography usually more engaging.
Scientists strive for maximum clarity. Or documentary photographers. In art I often look for the opposite - suggestion and ambiguity appeal me more than clearly stated and executed ideas.
Scientists strive for maximum clarity. Or documentary photographers. In art I often look for the opposite - suggestion and ambiguity appeal me more than clearly stated and executed ideas.
RichC
Well-known
I agree with all you say, and if you visit my website you'll find photographs ambiguous in meaning - deliberately so.
I think my previous statement needs clarification: the most important thing in photography is to communicate the photographer's intent clearly - which includes ambiguity if that is a deliberate choice.