Is photography art?

Ksanti · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:22

I'm writing a paper on the subject, and while I realise 99.9% of you guys will all say 'yes', without a moment's hesitation, it would be interesting to hear your arguments. I'm also going to ask in galleries, art forums etc to gauge the opinions of different groups

Discuss

kae2 · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:23

If an empty frame can be art, then my photographs can be!

jorzeh · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:27

Get out of here, Ofcourse it's Art, That's why work is displayed in galleries it's also about creative use of light.

An Exception · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:34

When I was at school I used to think photography was art for people who couldn't draw or paint well.
Now that I have become interested in photography in the last couple of years, I would say yes it is 'art', but watered down a bit.

James J · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:47

It is art as you are showing others what you saw when you took the picture, whether its a faithful representation or a completely altered one. What matters is that it was your vision and that others experience it. A painting or drawing comes under the exact same stance also.

SourChipmunk · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:48

Great photos require an artistic perspective, especially when it comes to framing and lighting. One can just capture a few dozen photos of a subject and hope that a single frame will "pop", but for the most part photos can be boring. A photographic artist can change boring to captivating by using the proper perspectives.

I'm definitely not an artist.

Randomface74 · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:52

If anything I'd say good photography is more likely to be pleasing to the eye than good art (whatever that is).

Judgeneo · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:56

A more relevant question would be: What isn't art?

An Exception · 8 Oct 2012 at 13:58

^^^
Anything that has a purpose other than itself.

a1ex2001 · 8 Oct 2012 at 14:36

An Exception said:
^^^
Anything that has a purpose other than itself.

But then thats subjective as their are a million ways to make a cheap bridge from on side of a river to another but we keep building expensive pretty ones instead. Using your definition a bridge could never be art yet I would say the Gateshead Millennium Bridge is the very definition of art.

Going back to the OP's question for me Photography is an art form but not every picture is a piece of art, but thats because art is to subjective to define one womans master piece is a another mans messy bed or cow in a tank.

An Exception · 8 Oct 2012 at 14:43

I'm just relaying what a guy from the Tate apparently said.

http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/art101/2011/07/28/can-a-car-be-art-asks-bbc-host/

What your describing about the bridge is good aesthetic design. Art isn't defined my design.

a1ex2001 · 8 Oct 2012 at 15:03

An Exception said:
I'm just relaying what a guy from the Tate apparently said.

http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/art101/2011/07/28/can-a-car-be-art-asks-bbc-host/

What your describing about the bridge is good aesthetic design. Art isn't defined my design.

So your just repeating someone elses opinion? What do you think?

Whats the difference bettween 'aesthetic design' and art. The art of the gateshead bridge is not defined by design in fact quite the oposite the design is defined by the art. All imho of course

1 (mass noun) the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

I would say by that definition the gateshead bridge definitely fits in because it was clealy designed first and foremost to be appreciated as a thing of beauty.

An Exception · 8 Oct 2012 at 15:28

Personally I think the word 'Art' is like the word 'Love'.
The words are both over used and almost bankrupt of any true meaning.

peps1 · 8 Oct 2012 at 15:47

Comes down to if you subscribe to Marcel Duchamp's notion of the artist hand.....if A artist made it, its Art!

800px-Marcel_Duchamp_Fountain_at_Tate_Modern_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

Fountain (Duchamp 1917)

Personally I see photography as a craft, like printing, carving, painting and so on....and craft and art are not to be confused as the same thing!

You will also run into the notions of high and low culture.

Check out:
Emmanuel Radnitzky (Man Ray) = Fine Art (High Culture)

Guy Bourdin = Advertising (Low Culture)

Equal merit?

(and then that can lead onto a interesting discussion on if the boundary between High and Low culture were broken down in the 1960s with fine artists like Peter Blake doing album covers for the beetles and POPular culture)

An Exception · 8 Oct 2012 at 15:55

You also get people now referring to 'quality art', as 'real art' or a 'real-artist', as a way to disassociate it from the crap that is often passed off as just 'art'.

ElDude · 8 Oct 2012 at 16:09

James J said:
It is art as you are showing others what you saw when you took the picture, whether its a faithful representation or a completely altered one. What matters is that it was your vision and that others experience it. A painting or drawing comes under the exact same stance also.

That's a good way of thinking about it. As you're showing people what YOU saw and in the way YOU think of the image, it's an artistic interpretation. I think the definition of 'art' is getting very muddied by the effortless crud you see people churning out at places like the Tate modern.

To me, a straight unprocessed shot is a photo. Tweak it in any way and it becomes art. Although using the camer and light well you can get artistic shots with no processing.

My brain hurts

Incidentally this must be a question on some course somewhere as I've seen the exact question being asked around this time every year in photography forums

Ksanti · 8 Oct 2012 at 16:51

Nah it's for Pre-U art for my personal investigation, which I decided to do 'Photography as an artform - To what extent are the influences of fine art evident in contemporary photography'. It may well be part of a course, though, I've just not been a part of it.

As for having purpose other than itself excluding something from being art, I'd disagree with that. The Sagrada Familia has a role as a church, and concessions to utility such as the restrooms, but the intense aesthetic and symbolic aims of the building make it art without question.

James, would you say that any photo taken by anyone was art then? A cheeky selfie at the back of the club, so that others on facebook could see how cool you were? I wouldn't say photography isn't capable of being art, but I certainly wouldn't use a definition as wide and vague as yours. For example my preliminary sketches for conceptual photography I'd never consider art, but they are my vision.

Judgeneo · 8 Oct 2012 at 16:57

Although its a bit of a vague statement, personally I think that art is anything whose meaning is non-trivial.

This includes everything from mathematics to photography to architecture, though what each individual classes as trivial is incredibly subjective.
A 'cheeky selfie' posted on facebook isn't art to me, but one day when societal norms have changed that same picture will have different context, and its history could mean its classed as art.

James J · 8 Oct 2012 at 17:05

Ksanti said:
Nah it's for Pre-U art for my personal investigation, which I decided to do 'Photography as an artform - To what extent are the influences of fine art evident in contemporary photography'. It may well be part of a course, though, I've just not been a part of it.

As for having purpose other than itself excluding something from being art, I'd disagree with that. The Sagrada Familia has a role as a church, and concessions to utility such as the restrooms, but the intense aesthetic and symbolic aims of the building make it art without question.

James, would you say that any photo taken by anyone was art then? A cheeky selfie at the back of the club, so that others on facebook could see how cool you were? I wouldn't say photography isn't capable of being art, but I certainly wouldn't use a definition as wide and vague as yours. For example my preliminary sketches for conceptual photography I'd never consider art, but they are my vision.

Of course I would as art is very subjective anyway. If that persons view is of a nightclub, its a specific part of it and tells the story that they where there. Preliminary sketches are still classed as art also. This is never a straight cut topic anyway as what defines art varies between peoples opinions. Just look at most modern art, which is more shock and awe than beauty or expressionism.

For example, what I consider art is most definitely going to be different to yours. I can't draw or paint for example, yet I'm very good at 3D design. Is that art? Am I less of an "artist" because I lack "classical" skills? Nope. The problem is, the term artist itself is so wide and far reaching, my condensation of what it means fits very well.

Hans zimmer is an artist of music, yet so is eminem....

Devrij · 8 Oct 2012 at 17:19

Photography is art. The difference is apparent in that we create our images. We spend time framing and composing them how we want to, maybe even adding lighting, to show our subject a certain way, we take that raw data from the camera, and we make it look the way we want in PP. This is different from just data collection. We have a vision we want to show people, and we create it with the camera and other tools. No different to a painter using a brush.