i don't know, if photography is art...

[Nomad Z]

It seems to me that most of photography is a form of so-called 'found art' - see something, compose and record an image of it, and you have 'art'. If there is any artistic skill or vision involved, it is in isolating certain elements within the frame to create the composition. This, in my view, is somewhat different from starting with a blank canvas and creating the whole image (subject, composition, colour, form, etc) from within.

[Charlie Lemay]

Nothing says wisdom like uncertinty according to Zen philosophy.

[ChipShorter]

Maybe all of this has been said before.. But I do like a bit of navel-gazing now and again

I have often had thoughts similar to OPs. Perhaps not as succinct, but the feeling is a familiar one. In my own opinion, I think it is simply self-doubt, masquerading as a description of an entire medium. I get this feeling a lot, especially when I'm not sure of what I'm shooting and why. I feel like it's the worst kind of opportunism.. aiming my camera at something and hoping for the best. It is when I develop these that I feel that doubt about the 'legitimacy' of photography. I mean, Van Gogh never made a grab-painting of a passing carriage with a girl on top with a funny hat.

But when I'm on assignment, when I know *exactly* what I want to shoot, when I am in the right spot and I know that I shot at the right time, _that_ is when I feel just a tiny bit transcendant.

It has to do, I think, with the fact that it's so easy to make an image with a camera. And I think it also has to do with the way we see photographs appreciated. Someone instagramms an offcenter iPhone shot of a sunset with a bridge in it: 35 likes. (THAT is frustrating, and it can really cloud one's own idea of what the art of photography is. )

But art the difference is in making _a_ image, and making a _great_ image. It has to do with intent, and execution. You know what you want, and you get it. Then you show someone else, and they get it too. And when someone else gets it, when they appreciate why you're showing them this image, then you're really getting somewhere.

And maybe I'll even get around to posting some of those kinds of images; when I get some images that I think people will want to 'get.'

--c

[Bobbo]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Oh great, another idiot on a photo forum telling everyone there that what they do is not art while ignoring the fact that this question was settled in the art world a century ago.

Oh, great, another idiot taking things he reads on the internet, whether it be about photography being an art or not or anything else in general, personally.

Dude, you really need to chill. It's the Internet -- you know, that big series of tubes Al Gore invented. With an inventor named after what happens at the Running of the Bulls, you can't take it so seriously all the time.

Back to our regularly-scheduled program...

Actually, I don't believe that photography is art.

Let me explain: If I'm around town taking pictures, I'm looking for elements to capture. Like the lines of a building intersecting with a shadow. I'm not actually creating anything, but something someone (or something) else created. A person playing with Photoshop to combine elements that were not together originally -- or a person painting their impression of a scene -- is an artist, but not the guy who was out taking pictures of the original scene. It's the same way I feel about cover bands, too.

[CNNY]

Why should it matter? It obviously doesn't. Everything is art, and nothing is art.
Photography is a completely pointless activity. Photographs are just random mechanically produced products that do not relate to anything. They do not mean anything. They have no purpose to exist.
That is until they do mean something, until they do something. Until they move us or change our understanding or the way we see something. Then they are great.
But in the mean time who cares what you call it.

[FrankS]

Totally agree with cnny.

[Bobbo]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

Well feel free to continue in your own little world with your own made up opinions.

... and your opinion isn't made up? I love you belittling me because I proposed an opinion which is different than yours, rather than making an argument why mine is wrong. Good one, you win over 9,000 Internetz for that one.

Anywho, I was just playing devil's advocate. I proposed an idea to be analysed, mulled over and criticized -- too bad you went for a personal attack, rather than making a valid argument. If you care to try again, go for it. I'll even give you a couple starter questions: What exactly is art? Does it matter? Where is the line drawn between art and not art? Is it intent, or substance, or quality, or medium?

BTW, the first graph is sarcastic. The second one is serious.

I'm with Chris, this was sorted out so long ago, then the new kids come along and tell us we're wrong. What?

There is nothing wrong with challenging established ideas (otherwise I'd have a slave doing my laundry, I'd stone my wife for wearing a poly/cotton blend sundress and we would live in a world without Velcro or personal computers because we thought the moon was a hunk of cheese, not a rock on which to land astronauts). Saying something subjective like the definition of art -- as opposed to objective like a heliocentric view of the Solar System -- is settled is by it's definition closed-minded.

[CNNY]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Can you film that? Sounds like art to me.

Today I was wondering around MoMA in NYC and found my name on some ephemera publications in an exhibit -- I was so smug I almost set my ass on fire and ran around singing.

I was going to go to MoMA today, but my guest was not feeling well. Did I miss a 'performance'?

[Nomad Z]

What is art? Isn't that something that artists make?

If I see a (real, physical) landscape that I like or appreciate for its aesthetic qualties, is it art?

If I see a photograph of the same landscape, and am similarly moved, is that art?

If I see a non-photorealistic painting of the same landscape, and am similarly moved, is that art?

If I see a painting of a landscape that I don't recognise because it came from the painter's imagination, and am similarly moved, is that art?

[back alley]

the words, "don't bogart that joint", come to mind...

[peterm1]

This argument has been going on ever since photography was invented.

In my view it depends how you approach it. Art is creative. I have no doubt that the photos of Ansell Adams are both creative and are art. Is your photography creative?

Many people just capture scenes. I agree that simple scene capturing is not art. (Although it may occasionally result in an image that can be taken as art).

Others copy the style of their favourite photography "great" (like HCB for example). Thats OK when you are learning but at best its poor art as its thoroughly derivative.

You have to progress beyond that stage to be a real artist. You have to be,well, creative. Once you do this then you are on the road to creating something worthy of the appellation "art".

If you look at the work of HCB (sticking to him as an example) and study it, you will find that the thing that strikes you most is the relationship between the elements in the photo, not just the elements themselves view individually. His genius was in picking the moment to go "click" His famous decisive moment. He composed in camera and "on the fly". You need an "artist's eye" to be able to do this well and result in an image that has the required "balance" between the elements - an image that works.That is not just capturing any old image that comes along.

It takes both skill (to be able to manipulate the equipment with the speed needed) as well as vision to be able to imagine the shot before it is taken and as the scene unfolds. This ability to compose "on the fly" is every bit an artistic skill as much as that exhibited by a great painter who does the same thing when composing his image on canvas - only the painter does it infinitely more slowly and has the ability to rework the painted image if its not to his liking. The artist photographer seldom has that luxury.

Art is also decorative. Look at the photos of Saul Leiter and tell me they are not decorative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3wSjuImGu0

They are really quite beautiful. But art goes beyond being decorative. In my view it needs to make you think and to feel an emotion (other of course, that "god that photo is so bad I want to puke.")

For a photo to be true art you have to be able to look at it and wonder. It has to evoke something deep inside you. And the great photos do this. So yes, photography can be an art - but it all comes down to the photographer in terms of both their skill and what they are trying to achieve.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Oh great, another idiot on a photo forum telling everyone there that what they do is not art while ignoring the fact that this question was settled in the art world a century ago.

Rough, but right...

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Bobbo

I'm not actually creating anything, but something someone (or something) else created. A person playing with Photoshop to combine elements that were not together originally -- or a person painting their impression of a scene -- is an artist, but not the guy who was out taking pictures of the original scene.

I think you are thinking of the process of photography way too much and not the conceptual side. Also, if it takes no talent to photograph something...(because you are giving no credit to one who frames something... Which IS creating something) ...Then why are there so many bad photos?

[heartattackandvine]

Fortunately, Peter wrote, your photos seem to be much better than your writing (at least here).

[jordanstarr]

...I think this thread should just be shut down and people should read Crisis Of The Real and other great books (that as pointed out already) that have tackled the issue of "photography as art". The philosophy of art and photography won't be summed up in 400 pages on RFF. I'm all for great discussion online and elsewhere, but a smug comment (regardless of your entitlement to say whatever you want online) will only invite crude, reactionary and emotional responses on this forum. Of course, there are very intelligent and well-qualified opinions on this forum, but to sift through all the gibberish to get to them is more time consuming than reading the research, essays and articles from people who have dedicated their entire lives to this topic.

I'm not one to appeal to authority on the matter, but cut through the wannabe intellectuals and get straight to the source and read something of substance on the issue from someone who is an "expert" on the subject. Online, you will get a lot of people who will hype themselves up, get their egos involved and try to persuade others that their way of thinking is the only way to think. Read, educate yourself and incorporate that conversation in a forum that is more productive than here. Of course you can ask "is photography art?" on RFF and you will likely get some good answers, but the crap you have to sift through first isn't worth the effort.

[DamenS]

Originally Posted by Peter_wrote:

don't know. maybe some kind of a melancholic play. or sometimes even a funny play, when i see something, i want to share.

So, not only aren't photos "art" according to you (they're just melancholy plays or funny plays), but plays aren't "art" either.

You seem to believe that nothing which reflects or modifies or comments on life is really art ... in which case, what is it ? Is a painting or a photo or a play or a book life itself ?

[Nomad Z]

Originally Posted by jordanstarr

...I think this thread should just be shut down and people should read Crisis Of The Real and other great books (that as pointed out already) that have tackled the issue of "photography as art". The philosophy of art and photography won't be summed up in 400 pages on RFF. I'm all for great discussion online and elsewhere, but a smug comment (regardless of your entitlement to say whatever you want online) will only invite crude, reactionary and emotional responses on this forum. Of course, there are very intelligent and well-qualified opinions on this forum, but to sift through all the gibberish to get to them is more time consuming than reading the research, essays and articles from people who have dedicated their entire lives to this topic.

I'm not one to appeal to authority on the matter, but cut through the wannabe intellectuals and get straight to the source and read something of substance on the issue from someone who is an "expert" on the subject. Online, you will get a lot of people who will hype themselves up, get their egos involved and try to persuade others that their way of thinking is the only way to think. Read, educate yourself and incorporate that conversation in a forum that is more productive than here. Of course you can ask "is photography art?" on RFF and you will likely get some good answers, but the crap you have to sift through first isn't worth the effort.

But 'here' is a forum - a place to discuss things. If everyone went to unnamed authorities as you espouse, then forums would hardly have a reason to exist. If you think this thread has too high a crap factor, feel free to avoid it yourself rather than proposing that others do.

[sanmich]

Phototography IS not art. Some photography is and some isn't
Just like elevator music, most movies, the industrial paintings or sculptures sold to tourists are not art, yet music, painting, or sculpture can clearly be art.
The medium doesn't say if what you see is or is not art.

Originally Posted by Peter_wrote:

i even think, that a series of photographes could be art. or a whole body of work. as they tell a story. like the pictures of chris crawford of fort wayne. but not a lonely picture.

Would we see as art a lonely Picasso picture or Bach suite if the rest of it wasn't known too? I really don't know.

Personally, I can definitely enjoy a single picture very much without the need for a series.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by FrankS

And the purpose of this thread is? From a moderator's point of view, I just see it as a huge potential for pointless argument. Please prove me wrong.

Would you have preferred he started another bag thread?
Seems the `pointless'arguments are all coming from the usual suspects round here huh?
Youth should challenge and question.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Would you have preferred he started another bag thread?

Bags are art

[Anti-Hero]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Photography can be used for art, just like paint, pencil or clay. However materials or processes are not art. e.g. clay is not always art, sometimes it is just clay.

Photography is all in the process, and the process becomes an art within itself. Especially when it comes to film and self-processing. To say otherwise is just silly.

Entire thread = TL;DR.

Anything can be art, to argue over the qualifications for something to be art is, pointless, it's subjective. Get out more and snap some photos; take photography a little less seriously.

[paulfish4570]

art starts with a different way of seeing.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Anti-Hero

Photography is all in the process, and the process becomes an art within itself. Especially when it comes to film and self-processing. To say otherwise is just

Ut oh, are you saying digital photography is a lesser art than film photography? Also, are you saying if you don't process your own film, you are a lesser artist than someone who does? I think you may be confusing art with craft.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by Peter_wrote:

it wasn't meant to serious.

then it should be in the "humor" forum.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Is this photography art?

http://www.billynewmanphotography.com/images.html

Depends on who's looking at it, really. I worked with some museum curators, many years back. One of them gave me the official line: "if we catalogue it as art, it's art. If we catalogue it as artisanship, it isn't art."

So I asked him who made the decisions? "Whoever is holding the pen in one hand and the catalogue card in the other."