documentary versus artistic photos

<p>Hi,<br>

some people distinguish between documentary and artistic photos - I read some 19th century philosophy of photography writings and it stated that even with realism, documentary photos are artistic.<br>

On the other hand, I saw that also GettyImages has "archive" and "creative" photos.<br>

I would like to see your opinion on this.<br>

thank you<br>

Maria</p>

<p>I think there are degrees of this. For instance, various shots of the same building can fall into one or both of the categories. In some cases, the shots are utilitarian and are more at the one extreme of documentary--just descriptive. In another case, the shot can be done with great thought and skill and serve both documentary and artistic purposes. An abstract of the geometry might leave the documentary and become more artistic.</p>

<p>The Stock companies are the last place I would look for indications of what is what. They are commercially oriented and, as far as I am concerned, the pariah of the photo world--but do serve a limited purpose. (but I have no opinion on this!)</p>

<p>Anyway, stock companies use "creative" and "conceptual" to describe images that generally employ artsy techniques or are can not be used as literal descriptions of things--their categories may at times work but they really have nothing to do with what is "art"istic.</p>

<p>I agree with John (including his non-opinion of stock companies). If there is a difference between documentary and artistic photos, I think it lies in the intent and purpose of the photographer, not the subject itself. An extreme example would be the intent of a crime scene photographer when photographing a dead body, and the intent of Joel-Peter Witkin when photographing the same body (regardless of whether you would call that art.). But the lines between the two are not always sharp. I doubt that anyone would deny that Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl photo fits equally well in both categories, or Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother photo. For me, the test of whether a shot qualifies as art is whether or not there's something that pulls you into it, beyond just looking at a two-dimensional image record of the subject...</p>

<p><a href="00Xz8P">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00Xz8P</a></p>

<p>Getty classifications and distinctions are financial in nature. </p>

<p>I have been taking "documentary" portraits for over 40 years now. I believe they are artistic! I like the "energy" you get when photographing someone who is engaged in an activity and you simply approach them and take a picture, "interrupting" their flow of activities for only a few seconds. You are not only getting them in an environmental setting with actual (available) lighting, but they are engaged in an activity that is "real" and not arranged or set up by the photographer. Most of the portraits in my folders or on my website were done this way.</p>

<p>Well, I think that there exist photos which are definitely documentary. For example, if you are a civil engineer, you work in a testing lab (this is, where you build models of structures to test them on a shaking table for example), and take a photo of them.<br>

Or, in the aftermath of an earthquake, the photos of how the columns etc. got damaged.<br>

Or, microscopic photos of textures. With this later, they can be very artistic, and there is even a trend of bringing science and the arts together - I was reviewer at the EuroScience Open Forum for series of sessions on science and the arts.<br>

However, if I take photos of buildings to document their facade - I mean, I am taking them to see the facade details best, and not from crazy angles to make a "creative" photo.</p>

<p>I've just found that there is a forum for documentary photography - I have to check if there is a category when submitting your photos for critique :)</p>