So I told one of my friends that I was going to be taking a photography class. She told me that if I did she would make fun of me for it because photgraphers are not artists. A debate ensued. I told her that a true photographer, one who takes into account lighting, placement, environment, etc, should be considered an artist. Now your probably wondering why I’m putting this in IMHO instead of GD. I really don’t want this to turn into a debate, rather I’d like to know what your opinion is and why. If for some reason this does turn into more of a debate than I’d like, mods feel free to move it right on over. Thanks in advance!
Photography is about seeing the world and expressing your feelings about it. I think it’s an art form, not very different from poetry or painting. Rather than choosing the right words or the right brush stroke, you express your emotions through careful choice of lighting, composition, settings, etc.
I wonder why your friend said photographers are not artists. Has she never seen photographs that provoked strong emotions? Does she not think that it takes talent and effort to identify such scenes and capture it in a way that means something to the viewer?
When I was a fine art major photography was much frowned upon. Of course this was before the revolution (digital-wise). I think what’s problematic is that pretty much anyone can point & shoot a reasonable camera and come up with a fair percentage of good pieces. The idea is it should be more difficult than that - but, that’s not to say I defend the “keep the commoners off the boat” approach. I think what it actually proves is that we’re all art-makers.
You will notice, however, that in most museums photography is carefully segregated from the rest of the collection.
I think she has the same mindset that fessie mentioned. She believes that anyone can just point and shoot. I however agree with scr4 in that photography is about provoking emotions by using the right light, composition, etc.
Pretty much anyone can slap some paint on a canvas or attach a urinal to a wall and convince someone else it’s art.
When I see a masterfully made photograph, I know that it’s good. Even Van Gogh, Monet and Rembrandt have not made me gasp the way some photographs have – despite my interest. For me, photographs are more haunting, more revealing – and the photographers just makes it look easy.
Find her one of those Time Magazine’s “Year in pictures/Our Century in Pictures” books. The photographs in those, especially of the Depression and Wars are some incredibly mindblowing, emotionally hard hitting things. Anyone who says that’s not “art” doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.
Of course, art is all abstract, but as mentioned, it deals with emotion. It shows you the world clearer than any painting ever could, and when done right, can hit home an idea better than any writting.
For the less emotional, more visual aspect though, there’s some absolutely amazing stuff out there. My favorite photographer is a guy named Howard Schatz. He’s got a great online gallery you can find simply by googling his name (Shatz/Orenstien Gallery). His underwater work is absolutely amazing, and I’d challenge her to “Just point and shoot” and come up with anything even remotely close to his “Body Knots” work.
Yes, when done correctly, photography IS art. But, like all art forms, it can be done for fun and by anyone. That’s another great thing about art, it’s universal, and everyone can do it (some just do it better than others).
Well, I guess I can understand that point of view. People look at photos and say “I could have taken the same photo if I were there!” But ask them if they would have taken the time and effort to get to that place and wait for that perfect light or that perfect moment. Ask them if they would have known to look in that direction and recognize it as a powerful scene.
Photography is an art. And so is retouching your photos in Photoshop!
Of course photograpy is an art. And fine art snobs that say otherwise are just, well, snobs. The recent school of thought for art seems to be “anything that makes you think” (see: Piss Christ). I don’t really agree with that definition, but photography would meet that criteria. It certainly can be beautiful, thought provoking and evocative of emotion. The only way I can see an argument that photography cannot be art is some sort of “was it done in the Rennaisance?” litmus test. Which is just silly.
I have an artist friend who said that she didn’t think photography was art, but changed her mind. I think it is at LEAST as difficult as painting or anything else. I’m amazed at the shots some people are able to capture. It’s very difficult to know the exact moment when the light is doing exactly what you want it to do. Lens filters and other techniques are other “brushes” for the artist to do. Photography not art? Bah!
Read my post - I wasn’t dissing photography. Personally I happen to believe we’re all artists & some are better than others (your standard bell curve). Every photograph is the result of a jillion choices.
I was just trying to explain where the snobs are coming from - basically a place where they feel threatened.
And, too, I think that artists, especially the ones who were fine art majors, get tired of having their work, which is the result of many years of study and effort, held to the same level of regard as Jimmy’s picture of the Grand Canyon. I mean, can you not take a good picture of the Grand Canyon? I think that’s what makes people snippy. And yes, of course Ansel Adams is another story entirely (note bell curve reference above).
you tell me.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=205622
(not mine, just some really nice stuff).
Lucious! I agree, really nice stuff. Way beyond the paramater of “good” pieces in my first post.
This article on that web page is interesting, too:
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column7/
(some quotes from)
So You Say You Want To Turn Pro?
by Mike Johnston
"Every now and then, I hear some amateur musing about how he’s contemplating a “career change” to professional photography. I’ve got to admit, it makes my blood run cold. Few professions are more mysterious to amateurs. First of all, the work is about 70% marketing. If you’re not good at marketing, or you don’t enjoy it, or you aren’t willing to do it, you’re not going to get very far.
Nature photography is so competitive and cutthroat that only a few remarkable photographers who also happen to be remarkable businesspeople can prosper in it."
Art, absolutely. One of the more fascinating things about photography is that a photographer has to start with the objects, the subjects, the light that are, and then do something with them.
I, too would be curious about how the OP’s friend figures that photographers are not artists.
How about photojournalism?
I’m an editor at a newspaper, and our photographer, IMO, is as much an artist as any painter or sculpter. He has to capture things as they happen, he has to set up a shot on a moments notice, taking into account lighting, background, expression, movement, etc. He has to make F-stop adjustments, change shutter speed, etc. all on the spot. And he never retouches his photos. But they come out looking fabulous, full of emotion, telling a story every single time.
I take pictures for publication on occasion, and while I think I do pretty well (and am getting better), my work just does not compare to the stuff our full-time photo guy puts out.
Photojournalism, to me, is as much an art as anything.
Happy
If you can put your heart into your photos, your photographs can be art.
I’m an artist whose medium is photography and sculpture and so I have zero objectivity here.
Having said that, I will agree with Shibb0leth in regards to the " if it makes you think or feel, it’s art" area. This isn’t really about photography, though. This is about What Is Art, and that’s a separate thread ( One I may start in a moment over in Cafe Society ).
A snapshot of the kids frolicking in the surf may not be art to anyone else, but there is no denying that it is very evocative to you and your family. Is that art? Is it less of an art because it was made in 1/125th of a second than in a weekend of painting? I think not.
The care I take with the craft and the creativity of my images is evident, I feel. I would wager a guess that most if not all serious photographers regard their efforts as artistic endeavors.
I would link to some of my works in the Teemings Gallery but inexplicably it doesn’t seem to be up right now.
How do you define an art? rayray5884, there are some breathtakingly moving photographs around that were “snapped”- lighting, location etc. weren’t really planned out at all. Many are news shots, some are not.
To me it truly boils down to Eye. If you have an Eye for composition and the Decisive Moment ( Eugene Atget’s theory of photography), then you are an artist.
Cartooniverse
capybara started a thread last week “Art Discussion…what is art/kitsch/crap” (or something like that) in Cafe Society last week. It’s a continuation of the rant I started in the Pit re:Thomas Kinkade (contains much profanity).
it was debated whether the conversation belonged in the Cafe or IMHO
Photography is art as much as is painting, there are photographers who photograph given narrow parameters (pictures of their kids at a birthday party) and others who create with the medium, push thinking and science in different directions.
I think where people get hung up is in the technology and accessibility of the medium. There isn’t a whole lot of “crafting” involved at the lowest levels of the art.
I can produce a picture with minimal effort, a pretty good one too, that doesn’t make me picasso.
It all depends on what is done with the medium.
Cindy Sherman - artist (artiste- pronounced with a pretentious french accent if it helps to make her sound more avant garde)
the guy at k-mart - artist in the same way bob ross was.
Just cause it’s art, doesn’t mean it’s good art.
As a talentless amateur photographer, I can assure you that photography is definately art. Contrary to popular belief, good photography is a lot harder than simply pointing and shooting. There are myriad things to consider. What kind of film do you use? Negative or slide? What speed? (There’s a trade-off between exposure time and graininess). What aperture setting? (There’s a trade-off between more light and more depth of field). What lighting, flash (if any), color and UV filters (if any), lens (wide-angle, standard, telephoto, fisheye, macro, zoom/bellows/extender, etc), and film format are you going to use? And that’s just for shooting. Once you start printing, there are even more choices. What kind of developer are you going to use? And mixed at what proportion and at what tempurature and for how long? There are myriad kinds and sized of print paper, and so on. I know a guy who once spent a month experimenting with different developer solutions and making thousands of test prints just so he could create the exact effect he wanted for a single print. (It was fabulous, by the way.)
Anyway, my point is, it takes a tremendous amount of practice and knowledge and science and chemistry and so forth to be able to make these descisions well, and in many cases just to know what options you have in the first place. Of course, no amount of scientific knowledge can account for simply having a good eye for an interesting or beautiful subject to take a picture of in the first place.