Is photography art?

[judestar82]

So, my second attempt at a photography theory debate. lol.

What makes photography Art? What makes it NOT art? What makes it more than just talent at a craft? IS photography art or is it just craft in the same way the artists before the renaissance were just artisans: gifted yes, but not considered 'artists' in the way we know the word... What's your opinion?

I can't quite get my head around this. There are some gallery's i've gone to lately with photographers hanging their 'art' and i look at it and see normal photos of normal things. for me, its hard so see a photo and see 'art', yet the yuppies and snooty people at these galleries all sit there and are like "oh, yes! I can totally see your theory behind this shot. yes yes, you are awesome." and the photographer sits back and smiles a smug little smile and nods, preening in his esteemed glory. I look and all i see is a pile of debri, a junky car, presented in a way that shows hardly any craft or life. and then i'm reminded of the story of the Empire's New Clothes. or, specifically, to our age, the dadaist movement which i think was ridiculous (though i see its importance and feel it needed to happen in history because it was a natural progression in the path of art). so, have we progressed since the renaissance? Why are photographers considered artists when some of their pics are neither good nor follow a concise thought...

???

Edit: i'm not interested in book definition of art...i can look that up myself. I'm wondering what quality YOU think a photograph must have in order for it to be art IN YOUR MIND. in other words, i want the 'indescribable' to be described.

[mudman]

I think there needs to be artistic intent behind the image; composition, DOF control, exposure, post processing. Photography falls into a lot of categories, with the vast majority of images being snapshots; things that I would not consider art. Blurry photos of friends at a party for example. Sometimes Photography is merely used to record; crime scene photography. I think as long as the photographer has approached the subject with some sort of artistic goal in mind, then the image is or can be considered art. I recently saw an exhibit where the photographer had taken photos from a moving train. Most of the images to me would fall into the snapshot category, but some where quite extrodinary and completely unexpected. does the that make some of the photos art and some not? No, I don't think so. In these days of modern "art" there is a anything goes approach sometimes.

[coppertop]

It's not art... it's an art form.
The process is the craft.

[Nearly]

Rather than go on endlessly, I will use this; then draw own conclusions?

http://science.jrank.org/pages/5175/...-art-form.html

[drh681]

I see your point.

and I'll raise it with this;

In photography in particular, we have a medium for expression, for communication, and recording.

suffice it to say any photograph is a record in it's initiation.

for that record to communcate, it is going to need a certain commonly recognizable organization of features.

From here we can step over to the "expressive" or creative nature of the medium.
As Coppertop says "the process is a craft".

Some photographers get stuck in the "craft part" studying the tools and techniques with an obsession. They take seminars and study the work of "The Masters" then go out and duplicate ( or try mightily ) thos "Phamous Photos" but they never learn to "see".

Then those craftsmen wonder why their work is unappreciated by gallerists, curators, judges or the public in general.
They spend years producing what I call "perfectly executed boring pictures".
Those same craftsmen then rail against images made by untutored newbies that while technically flawed, seem to be visually interesting to many people.

Don't mis-understand me; craftsmanship is an important tool to a photographer. But, it needs to be combined with imagination and an open mind to make consistantly good ( interesting? ) images.

The craftsman can make a perfect image everytime. The newbie can make interesting images sometime because they are seeing before they "think".

The "art" comes when we can combine those qualities. "Seeing" an image before we even pick up a camera, and having the skills to record that ephemeral Idea in a manner that makes communication possible.

So, are we technicians? craftsmen? artisans? or artists?
I think the answer is obvious.

[BobF]

Q: Is photography art?

A: Yes and no.

[Riepejer]

Here is an opinion from a very down to earth non college educated realist. With the advent of digital photography it is becoming more so an art form for many but not necessarily for all. With people being able to themselves manipulate their own images it is becoming more common. Taking pictures of family, friends or events to be remembered is much the same as before. But, in my opinion, with HDR where the photographer is manipulating a photographic image to look like an oil painting that can be considered art. I personally don't like it but to each his own. Your question is one that is not easily answered because there will be several different opinions. If I use a CPL to make the sky look more blue and someone else uses a filter to make the sky look yellow or red is my image simply an enhancement and his/her image an artistic expression? There, I've said all I'm going to say because I probably don't belong in this discussion in the first place.

Jerry

[stargate87]

A little artistic expression, in this case a simple change in crop, can make the difference.

[Fotolopithecus]

Almost any human endeavor can be turned into an art form depending on the approach one takes. The pilot that saved all his passengers by landing in the Hudson river was described as an artist by a fellow pilot. A man who approached flying as an art, rather than a technical exercise, the best surgeons, same thing.pith

[OJS]

To make it short and sweet, I totaly agree with DRH's explanation!