Is Photography Art?

bmattock · 08-11-2009

IS PHOTOGRAPHY "ART?". By A. G. MARSHALL. Photographic Mosaics, 1898

Google Books Search "Is Photography Art?"

It seems the question has been asked and asked again - dating back to the dawn of photography.

Funny we still ask it from time to time, eh?

kbg32 · 08-11-2009

Some things, questions, never change.

Ho hum.....

FrankS · 08-11-2009

I used to contemplate this question until I came to realize that anything can be art if that is the creator's intention. So of course, yes it is. Any work of art may be perceived subjectively, historically, and/or commercially as good/important/successful or not, but it is still art.

dcsang · 08-11-2009

nope. . .

Dave

George Bonanno · 08-11-2009

Photography at its best is a craft.
Nothing more and a lot less.

However when trickery and ignorance enter into the equation then it's deemed by the visually handicapped as art.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 08-11-2009

George, this was resolved 100 years ago. You're wrong, end of discussion. It amazes me that this discussion continues among amateur photographers when it is a dead issue in the world of art and has been for a VERY long time. It is akin to chemists saying that their discipline isn't really science just because 1000 years ago chemistry was regarded as a form of sorcery.

aizan · 08-11-2009

photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.

next question!

back alley · 08-11-2009

i don't know but i like it...

mfunnell · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan

photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.

That's as useful and concise a summary as I've seen.

...Mike

Chris101 · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

George, this was resolved 100 years ago. You're wrong, end of discussion. It amazes me that this discussion continues among amateur photographers when it is a dead issue in the world of art and has been for a VERY long time. It is akin to chemists saying that their discipline isn't really science just because 1000 years ago chemistry was regarded as a form of sorcery.

When I worked in industry, chemistry was a technology. Now I'm at a college, so it's a science again (except when I'm teaching, then it's just work.) It all depends on the application.

AgentX · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan

photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.

next question!

You stole my post!

I always ask "is writing art?" If that fails to make the point once you point out the difference between a personal letter, a James Joyce novel, and advertisement copy, I ask:

"is painting art?" Of course, they usually say. "But what about house painting? Sign painting?" If they don't get it it's probably a lost cause.

MD

amateriat · 08-11-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Bonanno

Photography at its best is a craft.
Nothing more and a lot less.

However when trickery and ignorance enter into the equation then it's deemed by the visually handicapped as art.

George: That argument can, and indeed has, been used in regard to painting, sculpture, music and literature (try Vermeer vs. Pollock, Rodin vs. Moore, Mozart vs. Glass, Faulkner vs...oh, hell, too many to pick there). And, before you head me off at the pass, the "mechanical reproduction" argument against photography doesn't quite cut it anymore, either, given that at least three of the above creative forms have been augmented (some might say molested, but that's an argument for another day) by technology in not-too-dissimilar ways.

Photography was a handy whipping-boy for this sort of thing once upon a time, but now, almost any medium can play.

- Barrett

Roger Hicks · 08-12-2009

Is anything art?

As soon as you answer that one, you know that it includes photography.

Cheers,

R.

maddoc · 08-12-2009

I don't know if photography IS art but I know for sure that chemistry is a form of sorcery !

Michael Markey · 08-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by back alley

i don't know but i like it...

So, it`s Rock and Roll .

pmun · 08-12-2009

Art is very much about how something is presented, so yes a piece of dog mess can be art as well as a photograph. The interesting aspect of this question for me is how photography stands in relation to other art.

It used to be in its shadow, photographers emulating painting for credibility, then it was used by painters, especially the impressionists to see things they’ve never seen before such a horse stride or colours in motion, frozen in time. Then it found a unique voice with the surrealists and latter the American school.

But in terms of art, it is still very early on for photography compared to painting. In terms of evolution and as an art form, where next, especially considering most people do it and that we see a multitude of clichéd, disposable and forgettable photographs every day?

www.urbanpaths.net

Turtle · 08-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

I used to contemplate this question until I came to realize that anything can be art if that is the creator's intention. So of course, yes it is. Any work of art may be perceived subjectively, historically, and/or commercially as good/important/successful or not, but it is still art.

I think it can be, but does not have to/need to be. I can be as much art as anything else because it can be used as just another medium, equally it can have no artistic perspective at all.

If we think of it as not art, I would ask this: if a conceptual art 'piece' were to be staged and photographed and displayed as a photograph (perhaps due to the impossibility of maintaining certain elements for long term 3D display), what would it be? Art? A photo of art?

pmun · 08-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle

If we think of it as not art, I would ask this: if a conceptual art 'piece' were to be staged and photographed and displayed as a photograph (perhaps due to the impossibility of maintaining certain elements for long term 3D display), what would it be? Art? A photo of art?

It depends how it is presented. In very basic terms and for the sake of categorization, if the photograph is presented in a gallery, then it's art. If it's in a newspaper, then it becomes journalism. A lot depends on context.

www.urbanpaths.net

Brian Sweeney · 08-12-2009

Why doesn't anyone ever ask "Is Painting Art?" It is just a form graphics.

"Is drawing Art?" It is just a form of doodling.

Or "Is Sculpture Art?" Obviously, it is just a form of modeling.

A camera is like a paint brush, and film is the canvas.

Of course, you cannot do real art with a digital camera, but they are not bad for radiometric analysis.

Think I'll make some coffee now.

Keith · 08-12-2009

art ... more art

Art is fluid ... it can be anything it wants to be ... including photography!

dmr · 08-12-2009

Nice camera, Bill!

David R Munson · 08-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan

photography is a medium.
any medium can be used to make art.
some photography is art.

next question!

I say we make this the official response to this question from now on. Seems like it would save a lot of people a lot of typing, as well as headaches.

gavinlg · 08-12-2009

Yes, it is.

Bobbie · 08-12-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Forget art -- too confusing.

Hello.

If you can't tell a "boy" from a "girl"....yeah, best to forget it.

Turtle · 08-12-2009

The other perspective to this question is that is just does not matter one bit what you call it. It is what is is. What photography is categorised as impacts upon nothing, so although we can debate it, none of this, or any other discussion on the subject, will change what it is (or is not)