Photography Isn't Art

[SpringfieldPhoto]

'Photography Isn't Art'. That was a comment made by a long standing member of my local camera club at a recent meeting. I was horrified as I have always considered photography as capable of being used for both record and artistic purposes. When I set up my studio lighting, I am making artistic decisions on how to light my subject, I can choose specific lenses to create an effect, adjust my exposure to modify the depth of field, I can chose to over or under expose in order affect the mood. Surely all of these ar artistic decisions. The same is true when taking landscapes we can alter reality by using different focal lengths, and all this is before moving on to editing, where the artistic possibilities are limitless..
I would love to have other peoples views on this, am I kidding myself that I am producing art?

[NathCarr91]

I agree with you Alan, photography is definitely art. Like you say, you're making artistic decisions for lighting your model to get different results. Same with landscapes, but not only focal length can be changed to alter reality, what about shutter speed, to blur clouds or water. These create something that isn't actually visible to the human eye.

If something is created, rather than captured, it's Art. In my opinion.

The very definition of Art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form" (credit to Google dictionary there) so your member is wrong really.

I like to do stuff outside the normal when it comes to photography. I don't really have a style or a particular topic/subject when I go out with my camera, I just shoot what I like. If I see something with nice contrasting colours (whatever it is) I'll take a picture. But not at how my eyes view it from eye level. I'll get low down or point the camera upwards or anything it takes to change the reality of the image.

Take this image for example. This is something I created in my own living room. This isn't a normal image of something from the everyday world. It was created using objects. I like to think of this as 'Art' because I created it. It wasn't already created for me to capture.



IMG_1517 (1).jpg

[ST-EOS]

Nath's example image certainly shouts "Art" to me, which seems to sit nicely with Alan's description of how he creates "Art" in his studio.

Nath's image makes me wonder how and what was used to create the image, or should I say art.

[@imagesBV]

I agree.....especially that it is 'capable of being used for both record and artistic purposes.'

I would add that to be art a photograph is taken having considered the intent....i.e. to evoke a response.
If it is made to simply make a pretty image then maybe that is applicaton of a craft rather than art.....a bit more to it than a record

in concludion Alan you are not kidding yourslf at all.

[Skyelines]

My definition of art would be something like this – The use of tools and materials to deliberately create an object that represents the ideas or perspective of the creator.

I think the problem that some have with photography as art is that because anyone can point a camera and take a picture it doesn’t require any forethought.

While this may be true for the majority of photographs taken in the world it doesn’t recognise the fact that a photograph can be a highly planned and executed production that reflects the perspective conceived in the photographer’s mind.

[El Sid]

This debate is as old as photography....

There is no definitive answer, those who are certain that photography is not art are unlikely to change their opinion however much evidence is put to them. Equally those who are utterly convinced it is art are unlikely to be dissuaded by contrary argument.

Cliché or not the old adage 'Art is what I like' does, in my opinion, hold true; if you think it's art then it is otherwise it's just artifice...

[NathCarr91]

Nath's example image certainly shouts "Art" to me, which seems to sit nicely with Alan's description of how he creates "Art" in his studio.

Nath's image makes me wonder how and what was used to create the image, or should I say art.

Thanks Peter that's really kind of you. It was actually pretty simple to do.

It was a lens ball on top of a mirror and then some different coloured LED finger lights attached to some string about half an inch between each one. I then span the lights around the ball in a circular motion and took a long exposure in complete darkness.

A lot of fun to do. I showed some people at the camera club I used to go to and some of them have since found their own ways to get different effects. One used glow sticks instead which was pretty cool effect

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I welcome all the responses and some other members of the Club have suggested that I do a talk at the end of the season entitled Photography, Art or Science. Preparing it will keep me busy and your contributions will help me.
I will let you know the reactions after the event. Thanks to you all.

[Skyelines]

Science in it's original meaning is knowledge. A work of art whether an oil painting, a stone sculpture, ceramic, metal casting, in fact anything created needs knowledge of the materials and the tools used.

In that sense one cannot have art without science.

If art is regarded as essentially the intent of the creator and the appreciation of the observer then the amount of science and technology involved in the creation of the object is perhaps irrelevant.

[@imagesBV]

Science and Art both set out to descibe the world.....by different means

[Lavenderhill]

Personally I have always loved art in every form, whether Chinese brush painting, water colour, pottery, graphic design and I see my photography as an extension of this. For me, photography as in art, is allowing others to see and feel something they would not otherwise have had the opportunity to do so.
Every person is different and that is what makes this forum and the world a great place.
Rose

[John Liddle]

In a world which seems to be full of virtue-signalling jiggery-wokery,

can a photograph self-identify as art?

Just wondering.......

[Trev B]

To me the photographs I take, together with the ones I post on here are no more than a record of what I've seen on my travels.
Art to me is having a piece of blank paper and drawing say the fox that I've seen in the field. Or in my case having a block of wood and chopping and chipping away at it until it resembles the fox in the field - Woodcarving. There I'm different the wife's always telling me so

[Wings and Things]

Photography means "drawing with light" - is drawing not an art form?

[Farider]

Photography is certainly an art form, it is the skill of the photographer to capture a scene to tell a story with regard to lighting and composition in a similar way to that of the artist with his canvas and medium. It is also about being creative and using any and all of the different photographic techniques and lighting to create whatever effect or image photographer desires. It is whatever the photographer wants it to be.

Ian