Photography is not art

I’m not including any works created with the intent to deceive. I’m only referring to images manipulated for positive reasons.

Many good points in your post. Thanks.

I’m ok with an intent to deceive, as long as it’s not photojournalism or forensics or other sensitive type photos. Movie directors deceive their audiences regularly, by using background screens, creating wind, faking movement, replacing scenery, all seamlessly so we accept it as given. Photographers may employ such intentional creative deception as well. The ethics of any of that will depend on context rather than deception itself.

Are there times when I want to know how a photo was made in order to better understand what I’m looking at and how it does relate to the world? Yes! In a lot of cases, though ...

Art is a lie that tells the truth.

—PP

I’m ok with an intent to deceive, as long as it’s not photojournalism or forensics or other sensitive type photos

Sorry - I should have been clearer. I meant nefarious, disingenuous, or otherwise malignant intent to deceive, not artistic efforts.

Forgive me, I don't have the patience to read all the recent posts on this topic.

My 2 cts:

- there are some photographers who deliberately take, combine, post-process and produce photographic images (often in series) to create photographic 'works of art'; I've visited a few exhibitions and read some books where I've been struck by the 'artistic quality' (as I perceive it); my experience has also been that 99% of images on internet photo sites labelled as 'art works' are - at least to me - anything but that.

- there are some artists who incorporate photography and videography into their range of techniques from time to time; for some works, they may play a major role, in others a minor (or no) role.

I'm a volunteer for a 'local photo exhibition'. In, reality it's a truly international 'visual arts' exhibition, curated around a biennial socially relevant theme. The main acceptance criteria are (in my view) 1) relevance to the theme of e exhibition, 2) artistic/photographic innovation in 'telling the story' and 3) international diversity of perspectives.

What struck me at the 2020 exhibition much more than in previous years were the high number og multi-media exhibitions. Some were solely photographic, some were solely video-graphic, Most were mixed media (combinations of photos, videos and text).

I also want to give a shout-out to a local artist who I (now) know personally: Corry van Hoof. When I first saw an exhibition of her 3-D works that incorporated processed photos, I was just blown away! Just by the idea that anyone could use essentially 2-D photos to create 3-D works of art in a variety of constellations, At the time time, it struck me that she didn't didn't just take 'artistic' 2-D photo' but that she had some kind of 'artistic 3-D vision' and some idea of the kind of structures and textures she would need to photograph to achieve this. Anyone who has was worked with artists or has worked artistically knows that this is not a linear process.:). So I assume that her photos also influence how she uses them.

Just by pure coincidence, I met up with Corry at her home a year ago and we spent some time together. Now In her 70's, she explained that she's still an artist and always has the drive to create. For her, photography is one of the 'inputs' to her creative process. She creates works with and without photography.

My 3ts:

I think that the idea that (still) photography is still an artform in itself is gradually becoming a minority view. I believe the that the time is rapidly approaching in which a 'photo ' is the equivalent of a movie/video still. Good for fast delivery (news) but not for posterity

IMO, the beauty of photography is its flexibility.

It can be anything from a (relatively) straight document (never the same thing as the "real world" but sometimes very close to accurately depicting it) to a more interpretive and expressive creation. Many creative photographers, even if they don't do "straight" photography, recognize the camera's ties to the "real world" and that informs the ways they're creative. On the other hand, many creative photographers treat photography more like painting. Very early in the history of photography we had the divergence between Pictorialism and Modernism (for example, the f64 group aesthetic).

I think the savvy viewer keeps in mind the range that photography can cover. When looking at photos, it can help one's reaction and understanding to be aware of the context, the body of work of the photographer, what the photographer herself says about her work and one can question when questions occur. We will often not have a lot of into and will make certain assumptions. We do so knowing that we might be wrong.

Nothing wrong with a bit of mystery, that sometimes can be cleared up and sometimes can't!

When looking at photos, it can help one's reaction and understanding to be aware of the context, the body of work of the photographer, what the photographer herself says about her work and one can question when questions occur. We will often not have a lot of into and will make certain assumptions. We do so knowing that we might be wrong.

I wouldn't even use the term "wrong" here. I agree that knowledge of context, historical perspective, and the atist's self-expressed thoughts can really heighten awareness, enjoyment, and understanding of his or her work. But assumptions need not be correct to lead to valid and valuable impressions and interpretations. Sometimes, they even lead to meanings that were unintentional and cloaked by the artist's conscious intent.

And artists who evolve dramatically often leave a disjointed history and context. Remember that Picasso was an outstanding portrait painter when he started. But the leap from this portrait of his mother -

LINK

to this -

LINK

defies contextual continuity for me.

...Remember that Picasso was an outstanding portrait painter when he started. But the leap from this portrait of his mother -

 

 

to this -

 

 

defies contextual continuity for me.

Hmm... Picasso obviously

went nuts somewhere

along the way...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

I wouldn't even use the term "wrong" here.

I think we're on the same page. My "wrong" mirrors your "not correct" ...

But assumptions need not be correct to lead to valid and valuable impressions and interpretations.

A great point to make. That even if we believe (wrongly or incorrectly) that the cow was part of the original scene when it was actually put there by the photographer, the photo still might just show us something in a significant way ... if we let it. And, there can always be another step which is that, when and if we learn the cow was put there and we were "faked," that, itself, could lead to an Aha moment. [Of course, the cow is a mundane example, but I'm sure we can think of ways this could play out to be revealing and compelling.]

Thanks!

Many good points in your post. Thanks.

 

I’m ok with an intent to deceive, as long as it’s not photojournalism or forensics or other sensitive type photos. Movie directors deceive their audiences regularly, by using background screens, creating wind, faking movement, replacing scenery, all seamlessly so we accept it as given. Photographers may employ such intentional creative deception as well. The ethics of any of that will depend on context rather than deception itself.

 

Are there times when I want to know how a photo was made in order to better understand what I’m looking at and how it does relate to the world? Yes! In a lot of cases, though ...

But theatergoers know it's all fake. After all, it's a movie. They're there to be entertained. No one really believes that Hans Solo is friends with a Wookie and travels around in wormholes. When he leaves the theater, he knows he was deceived and is willing to pay for the deception.

But photography is different for many people. Maybe I'm old. But many people still believe a picture is real. Sure, a change in lighting and contrast may have been done. But the basic elements contained in the photo are depictions of what the camera snapped. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't dress it up to your heart's content. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their artistic development. I'm just saying from the standpoint of many viewers, they're uncomfortable with that kind of inaccuracy. They shrug their shoulders with disdain and claim, Photoshopped. You may disagree with their viewpoint. But it's there. I'm just acknowledging it.

Maybe I'm old.

I don’t think this is a matter of age. Most of us here are roughly in the same age range and have a variety of views, as expressed in this thread. I’d say those differences among us are more a matter of sensibility than age.

I'm just saying from the standpoint of many viewers, they're uncomfortable with that kind of inaccuracy.

I can’t do much about what “many” viewers think. Should a viewer say something like that to me, I’d try to educate them about the different roles (pun intended) photography can play. I’d also convey to them I think accuracy, in many cases, is less important than emotional truths and expressiveness, which sometimes demand a re-imagining of the “reality” we’re accustomed to.

Alan, I could be wrong, but it strikes me that you’re doing more than just acknowledging this view. I get the feeling you’re advocating for it, from the way you’ve been writing. But maybe not. If you are, indeed, neutral and not advocating, next time a viewer in your presence says that he feels fooled by a photo that’s been manipulated, it might be interesting to explain to him some of the ideas put forward in this thread and see how they respond. The viewer may not change their mind, but a good conversation might ensue, and most photographers would be happy to know their photo stimulated that.

I don’t think this is a matter of age. Most of us here are roughly in the same age range and have a variety of views, as expressed in this thread. I’d say those differences among us are more a matter of sensibility than age.

That's an interesting topic for further thought and discussion. I'm halfway through my 8th decade of life, but my basic values, interests, and slant on life haven't changed - just ask my wife of 48 years ;). Consistent with this, I'm still close with several friends from childhood through college years, probably because we continue to share, respect, and/or appreciate the traits that brought us together. Even my favorite subjects to photograph are the same. I was walking the streets, school hallways, etc with my ratty Leica IIIc as a teenager, snapping life as I found it. I drove my wife (who grew up never taking a picture of anything) crazy on our honeymoon because I exposed several rolls walking around Montego Bay with my Rollei 35.

Now I do it with an RX100 or a phone - but I still do the same thing the same way. After ~50 years of traveling around the world together, she's used to it. In fact, she asked me to help her take some pictures over the last few years, and she turns out to have a good eye. She loves having and spending a fair amount of time looking at our art and memories on a digital frame in the living room (for which we pick images together from the thousands we've amassed). I may find different meaning in much of what I see after so many decades, but the drive is the same: to express my thoughts and reactions in images that I enjoy viewing, as (thankfully!) does my wife.

next time a viewer in your presence says that he feels fooled by a photo that’s been manipulated, it might be interesting to explain to him some of the ideas put forward in this thread and see how they respond.

One of the observations I'd offer after so many years of trying is that trying to help and educate people who didn't want your input is largely a fool's errand. When fear of being fooled is a prominent part of someone's thinking, it's often because they've had a lot of unmet expectations or unfulfilled dreams that they blame on others. This is often out of a need to avoid taking responsibility, which keeps them from learning how to form more reasonable expectations and facilitate their fulfillment. So they try to protect themselves against the feeling of being fooled by extending it to innocent encounters like looking at art or buying 100% beef hot dogs.

One of the observations I'd offer after so many years of trying is that trying to help and educate people who didn't want your input is largely a fool's errand.

I’ve had a home gallery for several years and I’ve struck up some good conversations with both friends and the few strangers who’ve come by. Depending on the setting and situation, I think people making the effort to come and see photos often show a lot of interest in talking things over. I get an awful lot of substantive questions about what thoughts I have about my work. I usually ask For their reactions first and build off of that.

When I say “educate,” I don’t mean it like a teacher in school, but rather like someone on the inside simply offering some perspective. Much more than the backslaps I get on my work, I’m energized by the different kinds of sharing, visual and otherwise, that can take place when looking at photos with others.

I appreciate the story of your history with friends. In terms of core values, I’d say the same is true for me. But in many personal ways, as I’ve aged I feel more liberated and less beholding to rules and many of society’s mores. I don’t think that’s, for me, a function of age per se. Many 18 year olds seemed freer than I was at the time and many 70-ish year olds seem to act more according to rules they’ve internalized than I do now. But I chalk it up to many of the particular experiences I’ve had, people I’ve met, books I’ve read, and art I’ve been exposed to, rather than my age itself.

I don’t think this is a matter of age. Most of us here are roughly in the same age range and have a variety of views, as expressed in this thread. I’d say those differences among us are more a matter of sensibility than age.

 

I can’t do much about what “many” viewers think. Should a viewer say something like that to me, I’d try to educate them about the different roles (pun intended) photography can play. I’d also convey to them I think accuracy, in many cases, is less important than emotional truths and expressiveness, which sometimes demand a re-imagining of the “reality” we’re accustomed to.

 

Alan, I could be wrong, but it strikes me that you’re doing more than just acknowledging this view. I get the feeling you’re advocating for it, from the way you’ve been writing. But maybe not. If you are, indeed, neutral and not advocating, next time a viewer in your presence says that he feels fooled by a photo that’s been manipulated, it might be interesting to explain to him some of the ideas put forward in this thread and see how they respond. The viewer may not change their mind, but a good conversation might ensue, and most photographers would be happy to know their photo stimulated that.

My points about being old have to do with growing up with slide photography, which many younger people today have never done. It forces you to compose in the camera. There's no cropping or adjusting of tones and contrast later. Even negative film photography wasn't really different for those like me who had a shop process the film including the printing. You got what you shot. No second chances. They went into the photo album as is. So you developed a protocol to be careful when shooting and framing the shot you wanted and exposing properly. That discipline carries over.

Of course, I've got LR and Elements and other programs and shoot digital today as well as film. And I;ve cloned out tree branches, traffic cones and with film, the constant dust spots that have to be removed. The branches bother me if not the dust spots. I don't know if being like that makes me some sort of a mental defect as Otis implies. I am a perfectionist and often my standards are too high for myself and others. Also, it's possible that being fooled by others in life makes one suspicious. On the other hand, I wasn't so 'honest" when I was younger, often arranging the deck to my liking. But after being burn by dishonesty a few times, with severe penalties, one grows more tolerant of the higher rules and values, especially as one gets closer to his maker.

There's another feeling of maybe jealousy combined with disappointment. You spend your time like I do shooting MF or LF film with setting stuff up and composing just right and at the right time when the light is the best. Then someone comes along and "shoots" a better shot made on a computer with little photographic talent or input. So you wonder why you're doing this, wasting your time with a camera. If photography is now about computer art, then it's a different discipline. It diminishes the point of a camera.

In any case, I enjoy shooting film and have taken up 4x5 large format photography only last year. But it's all vanity as well.

Lots of quite interesting perspectives here - and more proof for me that what we do with a camera is personal, and others should not get to make the rules for what we think, see, and want to present back. Like many others here I've reached what otislynch calls the 8th decade, and for most of the past 7 decades I've carried a camera as much as humanly possible. Along the way I've realized an overriding truth about photographs. I don't actually care what others think about my photos. It is not just grumpy old man syndrome, although that has definitely become more obvious to me and others as I've aged. I respect input on what they think they would make them better and frequently I find they are correct in their observations - that is learning and hopefully I'm still capable of doing that. What I have learned is that as far as reality and truth that is totally in the eye of the beholder, and they are welcome to believe and think what they want. I never set out to have a documentary perspective on things - there's too many ways to change what the photograph looks like, from simple things like taking 2 steps to the right, to waiting a few minutes(hours, weeks), to using different settings, to cropping out in the shot (as well as after the fact) things that aren't interesting in the photo. And I've become reasonably proficient at using the tools available today to make the photo what I want it to be after it lands on the computer disk, and what comes out is what comes out.

So, I don't believe photographs reflect reality, or truth. That includes being very skeptical about news-photos which I believe are always editorial in nature. They reflect what the photographer decided to show, and that in my mind is not so much even a version of reality, as it is the photographer's attempt to present what they think matters in a scene. I do find that interesting, and enjoy discussing with them why they made that decision. I had a very long discussion with the president of one of the local photography associations when I asked him about a safari photo of a large animal which he presented in black & white, and I asked why (instead of color). He responded "why not". That led to a couple of coffees about how much you should think about what the result is, and how much you can go with what you feel better about just because. It was quite an enjoyable conversation, and it went to my point about doing what you want and not getting carried away with what others think about it.

There's another feeling of maybe jealousy combined with disappointment. You spend your time like I do shooting MF or LF film with setting stuff up and composing just right and at the right time when the light is the best. Then someone comes along and "shoots" a better shot made on a computer with little photographic talent or input. So you wonder why you're doing this

Alan, I really appreciate what you've shared. Of course, only you can answer why you're doing this.

A famous fictional Moore once said, "Jealousy is a green-eyed monster." He then went on to say,

"Poor and content is rich, and rich enough,

But riches fineless is as poor as winter

To him that ever fears he shall be poor."

That mixture of jealousy and fear or disappointment can, indeed, bring us into a kind of personal winter. And age sometimes exaggerates that for us. Maybe there's something important to be gleaned from fiction after all!

As I age, I find it worth considering whose standards I want to meet and just how much of my life I make a comparison to or competition with others and just how much comes from within. I try to overweight the latter.

My points about being old have to do with growing up with slide photography

I understand. But consider that most of us grew up drinking from a bottle and then learned how to use a glass, or a drinking fountain, or our own cupped hands, or even a garden hose to quench our thirst.

Were you fulfilled by and content with what you're doing, I'd applaud that. I just don't know what to say when you express such regret about your photography compared to others. The slideshows you share seem so lovingly made and authentic and I don't get how what someone else produces takes away satisfaction from your own photography.

I think people making the effort to come and see photos often show a lot of interest in talking things over....By the way, rarely would I consider trying to change someone’s taste. When someone tells me they don’t like a photo, I’m often more interested in hearing their thoughts than I am from those who like it.

I understand and agree completely. But I'm not referring to those who want to see, experience, and learn. I'm talking about those who would rather criticize something than admit they know nothing about it and fear being swindled because they don't trust their own senses and judgment. I respect the taste of anyone who's put any effort at all into forming it, even if it's diametrically opposed to mine. There's room in the world for us all.

What burns my bottom is the sad mass of people who, lacking intellectual curiosity and any interest in knowledge beyond the superficial, reject so many opportunities because they're convinced someone is out to deceive or swindle them. It's those who won't tell a sommelier how much they want to spend and let him or her choose the best choice for their budget and meal because they're convinced the restaurant is trying to cheat them. Yet they lack both the ability to choose on their own and the willingness to trust a stranger's recommendation to try something unknown. It's those who, lacking the ability to judge for themselves, won't buy artwork or crafts simply because they like the work. They won't buy without the unverified and often groundless imprimatur of a name they know or a foolish cliché (like "photographs aren't art") to support their decisions.

These are the people who criticize from insecurity and fear, rejecting things that are of high quality and deserving of respect whether or not you like them. You don't usually have to get more than a few words into their reasoning to separate the thoughtful from the fearful.

Hmm... Picasso obviously

went nuts somewhere

along the way...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

The later one is vastly more insightful of his relationship to his mother.

But many people still believe a picture is real.

Many people believe a lot of things that aren't true.

Sure, a change in lighting and contrast may have been done. But the basic elements contained in the photo are depictions of what the camera snapped. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't dress it up to your heart's content. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their artistic development. I'm just saying from the standpoint of many viewers, they're uncomfortable with that kind of inaccuracy. They shrug their shoulders with disdain and claim, Photoshopped. You may disagree with their viewpoint. But it's there. I'm just acknowledging it.

The camera captures a completely unreal scene prior to it being processed:

The same is true with film too.

They went into the photo album as is. So you developed a protocol to be careful when shooting and framing the shot you wanted and exposing properly.

It's no different for me with my digital cameras. I absolutely obsess about light, composition, focus, and exposure. Nonetheless, for me what I get from all of that is a shot, a starting point, and more is required to make it into a photograph -- indeed, as I showed above, you can take control of that or you can just let the camera do it for you; but regardless, there's a lot that has to be done after the shutter button is pressed.

Of course, I've got LR and Elements and other programs and shoot digital today as well as film. And I;ve cloned out tree branches, traffic cones and with film, the constant dust spots that have to be removed. The branches bother me if not the dust spots. I don't know if being like that makes me some sort of a mental defect as Otis implies. I am a perfectionist and often my standards are too high for myself and others. Also, it's possible that being fooled by others in life makes one suspicious. On the other hand, I wasn't so 'honest" when I was younger, often arranging the deck to my liking. But after being burn by dishonesty a few times, with severe penalties, one grows more tolerant of the higher rules and values, especially as one gets closer to his maker.

 

There's another feeling of maybe jealousy combined with disappointment. You spend your time like I do shooting MF or LF film with setting stuff up and composing just right and at the right time when the light is the best. Then someone comes along and "shoots" a better shot made on a computer with little photographic talent or input. So you wonder why you're doing this, wasting your time with a camera. If photography is now about computer art, then it's a different discipline. It diminishes the point of a camera.

 

In any case, I enjoy shooting film and have taken up 4x5 large format photography only last year. But it's all vanity as well.

More power to you Alan. I would just say here that "computer art" isn't actually photography, though it might use photography as a starting point. One isn't inherently better than the other, and either or both or neither may be the best way to convey one's artistry.

I do see a difference in kind between adjusting the light levels and color cast of a raw file and the kind of thing Alan’s talking about, which is cloning in a major element or subject that wasn’t there. And there is a difference between painting a cow in a landscape and cloning one into a photo. They can both be creative acts, both work well, both be acceptable. And there can still be a difference.

My reaction depends on how these things work in the particular photo and painting. My reaction would be aesthetic, not ethical (unless we were talking about journalism or forensics). I might not like the presence of the cow and learning the cow was cloned in *might* lessen the impact of it on the landscape (or not), but it wouldn’t have to do with what shouldn’t be done in photography.

While I think it’s great to celebrate the similarities among many of the arts and certainly to recognize the art of photography and what it may have in common with painting, it’s also great to both recognize and celebrate the differences and some of the factors that make painting, dance, opera, sculpture, photography each unique.

Historically, many artists and many photographers have been inspired to work with and draw attention to their medium’s unique qualities, as Alan seems to like to do with photos, while others preferred to move beyond or even attempt to elide those differences.

I have my own way of working, and it involves consciousness of both what binds photography and the other arts and what separates them. That counterpoint is often in the background of my picture-taking/picture-making, sometimes weighted one way, sometimes the other. I have no generic judgments on which way photography should lean even though I may have strong aesthetic judgments on how the relationship between a photographic depiction/expression and the scene the photo depicts/expresses plays out in specific photos.

I have a definition of what I call art. I think if an artist or anyone who paints, draws, writes, builds, crafts, sculpts, photographs, etc. can intellectualize about what they've done or created: it's Art.

While I don’t think intellectualizing about a photo or anything else makes it art, I do think there’s value in intelligently sharing ideas about it, which often leads to robust disagreement. Art brings out passions. Sometimes, these things simply can’t be explained and the attempt to explain can be in vain. Sometimes the articulation of these ideas helps their ability to be used and nurtured in art. From the f64 group’s written agreements to the Dada and Realist Manifestos, artists have embraced the written word both to inspire their historical movements and to reflect their motivations. Those writings don’t make anything art or not art. But they are important accompaniments and often help guide an uninitiated audience in a general direction to help with the absorption of new and sometimes puzzling artistic vocabularies and grammars.