Art

Is Photography a form of Art? if so is it expressed through the Camera, or the

PC (Photo editing software)

Yes it is a form of art. And it isn't expressed through the camera or the MAC (I don't say

that other word). It is expressed through the mind.

Yes, to both.

At what point does it become art then. To me, it starts with pre-visualizing, even the day before, and continues through the process of choosing the time to click, the actual visualizing, the inter-action with the model or subject, least of all the Light, and then all that is involved in the finishing, to the final presentation. Zoe summed it up nicely, this is all done with the mind; regardless of the tools used.

The question of whether or not photography qualifies as an art or a technical craft has been debated for quite a while. In my opinion it's on the borderline, titling toward the craft side.

 

In my opinion, art comes from inside; photography, for the most part, does not.

It becomes Art in society when critics, historians and curators says it is Art.<p>

For The Rest of Us, we do what we do.<p>

Wanting one's work to become Art in this world is like asking a Madame to acknowledge we are a good lay.

Yes. The process of achieving the result is less important

A camera is a tool. It can be used to do many things.

 

Art is a word. It can be used to describe many things.

All ones customers work is art if one is a printer, this includes rare sunsets, dog images, soccer photos.

Photography can be art but most of the time it's snapshots...It's up to you to decide what is art or not..I think that if your work is being displayed in a gallery then that is a good bet that your photography may be considered art by someone..I do not have any rules that makes it clear cut in my mind..But generally I think of photography as being less than serious art..Computer generated pictures like I do is pretty far from art. Maybe it's computer art or maybe it's anything you want it to be..I was in a book store today and I was looking over a Michelangelo book. Now that guy spent his entire life learning shapes, forms, colors, techniques, skills etc, etc. He was an artist and passionate. My next door neighbor could possible get a digital camera for Christmas and by the end of the month have a pretty darn good shot all framed up. Is my neighbor an artist, maybe they are because they have a picture in a frame..Well enough rambling. Is Photography a form of Art, "Yes", Is it expressed throught the Camera, "Yes", or the PC "Yes". Also photography can be expressed the old fashioned way like Ansel Adams did with a dark room. Photography is also expressed through the camera snapper.

<i>"Is Photography a form of Art?</i>

<br><br>

 

no way, it's a hobby

As always, Pico, you have a wonderful way with words and illustrate just why photography is as much an art form as painting or any other means by which artists transform their vision.

 

We all have a vocabulary, just as a painter has brushes and we have cameras. We use them as tools to convey our thoughts and visions of beauty. When we're successful, that makes us a linguist, poet or artist. Simple possession of the tools means nothing until we use them to do their (and our) job.

 

I feel that the definition of photography as art depends on how it's being used. If we use a camera as a recording device in medicine or forensics, it's a tool and photography is a craft, but when we use that tool to express ourselves and to transform a mental image to a physical one, then it's an art.

 

Of course, Madame's validation doesn't hurt, either!

I'm not a big fan of Andy Warhol but I consider his work to be art and the camera was, for him, an important tool. There was such a huge amount of creativity in his work that the camera was almost incidental, just like a painter's brush is incidental, to the final output. By the way, he liked his Minox.

 

When I see photos on this and other sites of misty bays in Scotland, bugs crawling on leafs, etc, I say nice pic but it isn't even close to being art. Likewise, when I see a painting where the painter (I'm being careful not to use the work "artist" here) has slavishly copied a landscape, or a still life, I say the same thing, it isn't art.

 

To me the amount of creativity that goes into a work is what determines whether it is art or craft.

It is an art as much as painting and sculpting are art.

 

A sculpter that chisels a statue out of marble is just uncovering something that was already there. And he/she is using a number of tools without which the sculpture couldn't be made. Is sculpting expressed through a mallet? Some sculpters produce trinkets and garbage just like some photographers do. It is still an art, just not a very inspiring one in some cases.

 

An image in a painting is every bit as fake as a photograph. Probablyu has more in common with an "overly photoshopped" photo than an untouched one actually.

 

 

Is there a point to asking questions like this?

<P>OP asked "Is Photography a form of Art?" - the capital letter suggests there is some weight attached to this word, as opposed to merely "art". Or are we in a kind of Anglo-German, where every noun is capitalized? In which case he missed a couple.</P><P>I can distinguish between "art" and "Art": "Art" is more expensive.</P>

Terry, what is your definition of Photography and that of Art?

 

I ask this because I have been reading of late from those who continue to champion the notion that anything that comes out of a digital camera is just not a photograph.

 

Anyways, to answer your question, the answer in no. In the words of Pablo Picasso "There is no such thing as Art, only Artists".

Chris K.

 

<..A sculpter that chisels a statue out of marble is just uncovering something that was already there...>

 

What about a Calder stabile; was the "already there"?

Bernard, it probably wasn't chiselled out of marble was it/ ;)

And he probably didn't make such a thing with his bare hands.

 

My point was that alot of people consider photography to not ba an art because the photographer relies on tools (camera/lights) and captures "reality". I think that is an extremely simplistic dismissal.

 

I think that "great" photographers create something that is every bit as artistic as painters, sculpters, dancers create. Just a different medium. I think the "purists" reject photography because it can be heavily dependent on "technology" (the camera, photoshop etc...).

 

I'd say a Calder stabile has more in common with this...

http://www.photo.net/photo/5116375

 

than anything. Not my cup of tea certainly.

 

or this maybe...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5319879

 

Much better, but is it art? if you think so then sure. Why not?

Chris-

 

Sure, "The Light Behind" is a work of art. But if you read the questions that follow, two people asked if it was a photograph. The reply was "Sergio, it's a digital work, please see the details."

 

So I don't know, is it a photograph? Is it a digital manipulation? Is it a photograph of someone else's work? I think what the "artist" is saying when he uses the term "digital manipulation" is it isn't just a photograph.

 

Regarding "Writ on Water", I do think you make your point well with that one. I would agree it is a photograph and it is art.

fair point. I was using the "digital manipulation" as an example because it is completely the product of a computer program. It isn't a photograph and I suppose it isn't being passed off as one (although one wonders what it is dong at photo.net but that is a whole other discussion).

 

I suspect that the creator of that peice (and his many adoring fans) considers himself an artist. If so, then I can't see why "real" photography wouldn't be art (or Art).

 

I guess I get a bit frustrated by this question of whether photogrphy is "Art". I really don't see the difference between it and othef more accepted forms.

The problem is not whether photography can be art, but in confusing art with finished

product or the technique employed. <BR><B> It is the artist's psychological attitude toward

the

process of creation alone that signifies the artistic validity of the act that produces the work

of art.</B>

<i>http://www.photo.net/photo/5116375 </i><p>

So now if someone creates an image from scratch with a sofware product with "Photo" in its title, it's photography. (I know you were not saying that.) Tis strange, though, no?<p>

<b>Ace Fury</b> <i>

The problem is not whether photography can be art, but in confusing art with finished product or the technique employed.

It is the artist's psychological attitude toward the process of creation alone that signifies the artistic validity of the act that produces the work of art.</i><p>

Really. Then you have not heard me play the piano. I can do it with great intent, pure artistic blood, sweat and tears and it totally sucks. But I'm an artist? By gosh, give me a break. I don't WANT to be an artist if all it is is some theatrical-like lifestyle exercise.<p>

Pico, I'm sure you could find someone who would consider your piano playing as art. You just have to call it abstract or modern. Try it, maybe you can charge five figure appearance fees or something (let me know how it goes).

 

Just because it is art doesn't make it good art.

Chris-

 

In your example above, "Writ on Water", I do see the hand/mind/whatever of the artist in it. My guess is he took a photo of a pond somewhere, cropped the image down to those blades of grass, and carefully composed and printed it to produce what he saw as a work of art. I don't think that's a whole lot different, in a creative sense, from Monet sitting in front of his pond and painting lilies.

 

I just think there are too many photographers out there snapping away at junk, selecting the best of the junk, and calling it art. Painters do the same thing. Not all painters are artists and neither are all photographers.

<I>But I'm an artist? By gosh, give me a break. I don't WANT to be an artist if all it is is some theatrical-like lifestyle exercise.</I><P>If you don't want to be an artist then you are not one. The point being only you can determine that, not me or anyone else. I might think you are a bad, sh*ty, poor etc, artist and your art sucks but if you say it is art then it is art. Oh, and I'm not giving you a break.