Is photography art?

[BobF]

So Kenny, are you saying that photography cannot be art under any circumstances? Are you saying that there is no way at all to be expressive with a camera? Are you saying that unique vision or interpretation is not possible with a camera?

I'll give you some actual examples to chew on.

This isn't art, but simply a record of time and place?
This isn't art?
This?
This?
This?
This?
This?
This?
This?
This?
This?

I could go on.

[judestar82]

Originally Posted by Kennybh

Take ten or so folks with P&S's to 10" Large format cameras and line them up to shoot the same subject and composition at the same time under the same weather and lighting conditions and what do you get?

Then take ten folks with paint brushes, pencils, chalk, etc., at the same subject etc. and I'll garantee you the strokes and the impressions will not be identical.

So, is art created or is it a snapshot?

kenny

so, by this definition, you're saying that it's the medium that makes the art, NOT the human hand/eye. here's why i say this: you're confusing the issue by argueing two points that aren't the oposite of each other. Just as a painter uses his own strokes ect. to make his impression of the subject, the photographer uses his knowledge of the craft of photography in the same way. You are forgetting that the photographer doesn't HAVE to shoot the scene the same way that the other photographers do. in every lighting condition is the potential for an infinate amount of different shots of the exact same scene, varying from completely dark to completely white. So, the photographer's knowledge of lighting, composition, ect. is THE EXACT SAME THING as the painter's knowledge of brush strokes and color, ect. there may be more choices in painting, but the choices in photography ARE there.

so, by argueing this way, you are saying that its the medium that makes the art. which doesn't make any sense. if we're going by that definition, then you need to prove why the medium of paint expresses art more than the medium of photography. if one medium is a form of art, then another is too, no matter what.

But ... if art is an expression of a human thought or feeling, then it doesn't matter what the medium with which the art it made. in which case your point has no merit.

no offence, i just like debating...

[judestar82]

good point, dhr. I also really liked your earlier thoughts on the matter about craft vs. creativity. (sorry i didn't get around to commenting on it until now.)


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

and you're right. the answer is obvious. photographers are a little bit of all of those at once, but they are at different times more of one than the other.

[drh681]

He also failed to differentiate between recording a likeness of an object or scene with paint( oh-oh there's that record word again! ) and coloring one's house with paint
by his definition, house painters are artists. ( some of them are craftsmen; a very few are artisans, and an artist can certainly use a house as his canvas, but in general painting a house is not creating "art" )

[mommyfor4]

To me, it depends on the photograph

My cousin and her husband are photographers. But they don't do potraiture. They shoot only "artistic" photography and sell it in galleries. And are quite amazing! I have a few pieces in my home.

[G D Hickey]

Art is in the eye of the beholder......

The intent to make art is in the vision of the creator.......

A symbiotic relationship to be sure......

So,yes is my answer.