Fools Gold

<p>Is Photography really a serious Art? Photographs are not insured for millions or being stolen in art heists. When have you seen a Photograph behind bullit proof glass? Never. Is there a single Photograph, ever, that is considered to be a work of Art compared to the great work of Art. No.Photography, fools gold? or, at the very best a lesser Art. Or, perhaps an immerging Art form, yet still to be recognized as serious creative Art.</p>

<p>To me, the value of photography as an art form isn't measured by some arbitrary monetary value placed on it, rather it's the art of preserving cultural values so we can share in the present and remembered by future generations. </p>

<p>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Great_Day_in_Harlem_(photograph)">A Great Day in Harlem</a>" (1958) is a good example which lead to an Academy Award nominated <a href="

(1994) and referenced in the movie "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal">The Terminal</a>" (2004). </p>

<p>Not another "is photography art?" Is sculpture art? Is painting art?</p>

<p>To all three - No and yes. No, because it is the work and not the medium that is art. Yes, because any of these can be a medium for great art. And I also disagree with Michael's much too singular definition. Art is not (and photography is not) just a means of preserving cultural values for present and future generatiions. Its purpose is that of an experience, created (and experienced) by the artist, experienced by the viewer.</p>

<p>What is this nonsense about a bullet proof glass? Great art can be a 3 million dollar Gurtsky photograph or a simple $500 Picasso sketch (price in the 60s, maybe 10 or more times that today), but not requiring a bullet proof glass.</p>

<p>Art does not care about the medium used, only the result of its application.</p>

<p>Allen: Art is not the artifact, though some rare artifacts are the medium through which art happens to be presented (the surface on which a famous painting resides, perhaps). But art is communication. Photography, writing, musical composition, painting, sculpture - all: communication. </p>

<p>"In October 2005, a print of <em>White Angel Breadline </em>that Lange signed and gifted to Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry in 1936 was auctioned at Sotheby’s for $822,400 (est. $200–300,000), making it the most expensive Lange photograph ever sold."<br>

Sounds unaffordable enough to me. I wouldn't know what multiplying the price might matter.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Its purpose is that of an experience, created (and experienced) by the artist, experienced by the viewer."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, I would say that a photographer <em>records</em> and <em>modifies</em> the experience similar to an audio recordist or motion picture cameraman. This contrasts most other art forms where something is created from nothing. </p>

<p>The relative contribution of a photographer to the entire experience of the viewer can be debated, and that's where the old adage, paraphrased, comes in: "if you want to make exciting photos, go stand in front of something exciting." - It makes little difference whether the photo is simple but made exciting by its subject, or a complex photo is composed of the collaborative work by many non-photographer contributors. <br>

<br>

I think at least part of the reason photography does not command high value in the art world is the same as any other recorded medium - it's meant to be reproduced and distributed, but that doesn't make it any less of an art form. </p>

<p>"To me, the value of photography as an art form isn't measured by some arbitrary monetary value placed on it, rather it's the art of preserving cultural values" Michael.</p>

<p>　<br /> Monetary values are the measure of worth a piece Art is to society...in a sense a mark of repect/praise expressed in monetary terms. To quote a old saying "money talks".</p>

<p>　<br /> "This contrasts most other art forms where something is created from nothing". Michael.</p>

<p>　<br /> Often an Artist will photograph or sketch a subject then they will use their imagination to take that image to another place. I do not think something is created from nothing there is always an external import.</p>

<p>　<br /> "Not another "is photography art?" Is sculpture art? Is painting art?<br /> To all three - No and yes. No, because it is the work and not the medium that is art" Arthur.</p>

<p>　<br /> This is an old argument and is right in most ways,however,a photograph records what is already there. How it is recorded by the photographer is perhaps the only Art but the creation of a piece of Art from the imagination is going to and challenge a higher celebral place.</p>

<p>　<br /> "is this nonsense about a bullet proof glass? Great art can be a 3 million dollar Gurtsky photograph or a simple $500 Picasso sketch (price in the 60s, maybe 10 or more times that today), but not requiring a bullet proof glass."Arhur.</p>

<p>　<br /> The value society puts on that Art.</p>

<p>　<br /> Photography, writing, musical composition, painting, sculpture - all: communication. Matt</p>

<p>　<br /> Of course it is all about comminication but does photograhy allow that higher form of communication due to its restictive documentry form?</p>

<p>　<br /> $822,400 (est. $200–300,000), making it the most expensive Lange photograph ever sold."Jochen</p>

<p>　<br /> Loose pocket change in the world of Great Art.</p>

<p>The Photographer restricted in expressing Higher Art (for want of a better word) due to the limitations of a photograph but still believing they can create Higher Art....fools gold? A question rather than an answer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is an old argument and is right in most ways,however,a photograph records what is already there. How it is recorded by the photographer is perhaps the only Art but the creation of a piece of Art from the imagination is going to and challenge a higher celebral place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You need to go look at more photographs if you think that there's no room there for the photographer to have a vision first, and to then create that vision in front of the camera. Creative people, every day, concoct scenes by pulling together people, objects and other subject matter, making choices about how they relate to one another and how they're lit, and then work on the results in the physical or virtual darkroom to render the image they created first in their mind. Exactly as a writer might spend time selecting the words that render the poem or opera or novel that expresses their vision, or the painter might arrange paint on a canvas to render hers.<br /><br />Photographers routinely create images "from the imagination," and often with far more creativity in play than many a painter, sculptor, or performance artist can muster. <br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course it is all about comminication but does photograhy allow that higher form of communication due to its restictive documentry form?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does a 16x20 watercolor painting necessarily provide for more or better communication through artistic expression than does a 16x20 photographic print <em>because</em> one is a flat surface covered with paint and the other is a flat surface covered with oxidized silver or deposited pigment ink?</p>

Michael, I see photography as having much broader potential and imaginative possibilities than those you're expressing.

 

Money talks in the commerce of art, not in the art of art.

 

Like Arthur, I thought this simplistic debate was put to rest with Stieglitz almost a century ago, but I guess it's easier than actually looking at HOW and WHY we make photos and what our personal approaches are. Much simpler to debate in the abstract what it's "worth."

Photos hanging in museum galleries right next to rooms of paintings says as much about photos as art as whatever price

they generate.

 

Subject matter is but one aspect of a photo or a painting. There are limitless ways a given subject can be envisioned.

While there are grains of truth in the quote about fascinating subjects, it's not the whole story. A wise photographer

counseled me early on that when I could make a great portrait of a typical or generic-looking person I will have learned

something of great value . . . not monetary value!

<p>Indeed, consumerism infects art like it infects so many other areas of human life. Why does art have to carry a price tag?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is Photography really a serious Art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends on what you mean by Photography. <br /> If you consider it just the same as photography, I'd say No.<br /> If you consider it a simplified way to refer to Photographic Art, yes it can.<br /> What can be an object of serious Art is a Photograph or a body of photographic images. it took long to reach the status and some people may continue to say that is not the case or doubt about it, just you seem to do when you raise the question.<br /> However, not only real works of Art are big exceptions as some photographs considered as such in the so called "Market of Art" and traded a high prices still have to suffer the test of Time and prove they pass it or if they were not just a part of a bubble. But note that this apply to other works of Art the same way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographs are not insured for millions or being stolen in art heists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can see Photographs traded for millions (Rhine II, by Gursky for instance was 4.3 million USD in 2011). If it has to be sent somewhere for an exhibition do you think it will not be ensured for millions?<br /> No matter the amount insurance covers the eventual material losses but it will not repair the loss of a significant work of Art or do you think a money amount will make this loss meaningfulness in cultural terms?<br /> The fact of a thing being stolen in an art heist doesn't grant it an artistic merit certificate and only means that the robber considers it will pay him a price to justify the risks taken.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When have you seen a Photograph behind bullit proof glass?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't say yes or no but let me just ask you a question: if you go to France and visit the Louvre Museum in Paris, how many paintings do you see protected that way?<br /> Does it mean that the Louvre has the Giaconda protected because is serious Art and all the paintings in the same and next rooms are not?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a single Photograph, ever, that is considered to be a work of Art compared to the great work of Art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How do you compare the Giaconda to the David of Michaelangelo?<br /> Do you consider them to be "great works of Art" or just antiques that were considered as such before the appearance of Abstract Art?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photography, fools gold? or, at the very best a lesser Art. Or, perhaps an immerging Art form, yet still to be recognized as serious creative Art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Fools gold" can exist in all categories of the Market of Art and when we look at the collections gathered by some financial institutions (the guys are supposed to be looking for gains) you may ask yourself if they consider Photographic Art as a lesser one or still to be recognized. Or if the MoMA and other important museums around the world continue to bet on the wrong horse decade after decade now.</p>

<p>I wonder if the 16x20 framed prints of my photos are covered in my home insurance?</p>

<p>I'm sure the cave painters in Indonesia, France, the U.S., Argentina all painted for free. Thousands of years later, their work showed us: <em>there were humans here</em>. They were painting out of a desire to express something, to be creative, a desire I've only seen in humans and possibly in a late cat I used to have.</p>

<p>Creative expression is the difference between art and non-art. It's the reason we are drawn to a fine photograph or a painting or a good production of a well-written play. Maybe some people will attend a museum to see a recent acquisition that cost zillions; I think most go for the art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a photograph records what is already there. How it is recorded by the photographer is perhaps the only Art but the creation of a piece of Art from the imagination is going to and challenge a higher celebral place. (Allen)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Allen, Michael is saying something similar. I am referring back a page or so in this OP as I haven't had time to read the later comments, except for Fred's comments with which I agree.</p>

<p>Of course, the statement you and michael make about photography is not at all true when we are talking photographic art, it is only true when you talk about the simple reproductive capacity of the photographic medium when used without active creativity. Photographic art is indeed imagination and creation.</p>

<p>Most art in photography I am familiar with is created by the photographer. He may bring certain physical elements into the field of view and/or dispose them differently than before and according to his imagination. He may research a subject matter and look at it from all angles, compositions and light until he sees what he is looking for or intending. It is not passive click-click as you seem to say. Much thought goes into successful photographic art. Often more so than in sculpture or painting, as the skilfull use of techniques of the latter two often contribute more to the creation than the artist's intention or imagination. This is not true for great paintings or sculptures, but I see a lot of less intelligent, less emotive and less creative works even in the hands of acknowledged or high paid masters.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OP: "Is Photography really a serious Art?"</p>

<p>So "is photography art?" isn't the question.</p>

<p>Nor was the question "what is art?"</p>

<p>There are plenty of art forms not taken all that seriously. Is photography one of them?</p>

<p>Although some spend to preserve a few photographs for posterity, and although most acknowledge that photographs evidence imagination and creativity, and so forth, is photography a really <em>serious</em> Art? Is there generally even on tenth of one degree deprecation of photography compared to the so called serious art forms? If so, then photography isn't perceived as being as serious an art form as some others. If so, part of the reason may be in that suggested images may be perceived as having higher value than something presented statically in a photograph, suggesting an image being harder to achieve in photography than in story, poems, drama, painting, music....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did a search on the definition of “high art” and found a paper by Lawrence Nannery written on the subject. Good photography certainly “fits the bill” according to his list of the things that characterize “high art.” There is also a lot of "low art" photography, of course. Look up any definition of art and it refers to the expression of human creativity and imagination. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's make a list of the things that characterize high art and distinguish it from low art.<br>

1. Complexity of formal properties.<br /> 2. Complexity of the responses to the works, which sometimes have no name. <br /> 3. The fact that a full and fuller understanding of the work (either the form or the content) allows for an ever fuller enjoyment of the work. One has to gradually grow into the work. It does not reveal everything it has in one exposure.<br /> 4. The fact that a full understanding of the work can enhance an understanding of other aspects of life as well. <br /> 5. The fact that great works of high art are cross-cultural. They can be enjoyed by people of other cultures who have no other experience of the culture that generated the great work. Each great work of art is potentially a work of world art, not subject to the conditions of its composition.<br /> 6. If, according to 5, the work does not fade with distance, it is also true that it does not fade with time.<br /> 7. Works of high art are deeply related to morality, in the widest sense of the term, and sometimes problematize morality itself.<br /> 8. High art has a history, in which styles, techniques, genres and the entire orientation of the work of art is changed. Properly speaking, low art has no history.<br /> 9. Works of high art are individual. They bespeak a personality behind the work. Low art is best when it is anonymous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/HighArt.htm</p>

<p>Are high art photographs really a serious Art, as serious with respect to the value society puts on high art photography compared to the value society puts on other high art forms?</p>

<p>I think that is the OPs question and that it is a fair question whose answer is well known: no, high art photographs aren't taken as seriously as other high art forms. They just aren't. Why?</p>

<p>I summit to you a list of "Artist" that you can learn the "Art of Photography" from if you are willing to do the research:<br>

Dorothea Lange, Edward Weston, Cole Weston, Imogen Cunningham, Paul Strand, Ansel Adams, Alfred Steiglitz,Edward Steichen, Man Ray, Robert Maplethorp, Harry Callahan, Diane Arbus, Walker Evan Henri & Cartier-Brsson. Just to mention a few.<br>

This is a list of great photographer who created "Art" weather or not "under glass" or has sold for millions of dollars. You might get it after serious study of any or all of these people/artist! Keep shooting, Nolan Hulsey</p>

<p>The question, as I read it, is whether photography is a serious art. I don't speak for society and, in many cases, don't particularly care what society or most of society thinks. Most of society cares more about American Idol than Nan Goldin. That's interesting sociologically speaking, but not as interesting photographically speaking, to me. What curators, historians, critics, other photographers and artists, and what I think are much more important when determining the artistic value of photography. Not everything is or should be decided by the masses or by what rich people will pay money for.</p>

<p>Why aren’t photographs taken as “seriously” as other high art forms? Well, as Fred points out, they certainly are amongst “curators, historians, critics, other photographers and artists.” As far as the monetary value issue, it may be the perception that the fact photographs can be printed repeatedly may be to blame somewhat. There is also the mistaken perception that the camera is “doing all the work” may also be a factor. Monetary value aside though, most of us realize that a great photograph takes just as much creativity and imagination as any other art form. </p>

<p>At my local art museum: <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artic.edu%2F&ei=jet7VJa2AvTGsQTTmoDwCA&usg=AFQjCNF4MkueC-wUwVe8n5afCzIbMZ5oyg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc">The Art Institute of Chicago</a> photography is displayed regularly, both classic and contemporary. It is treated there with as much attention as other graphic arts.</p>

<p>I went to an art show in NYC a few years ago. I saw at least three copies of Adam's Moonrise Hernandez prints going from around $70,000 to $140,000 from different dealers there. What would the price be for Moonrise if there was only print in existence? </p>

<p>Part of it among those curators et al, may be that photographs are (are they?) less durable over time. Less longevity for dyes, inks, the papers, etc.?</p>

<p>More fundamentally, comparing high art to high art, any differences in that comparison using the High Art list from Steve?</p>

<p>No difference in complexity of properties and responses? No differences in fullness of understanding necessary to allow for ever fuller enjoyment of the works? (Would it be a negative if photographic art was more accessible to public at large because in part it wasn't, objectively, as full?) Compare the same as to cross-culturalness or fading with time? (Fading with the times - and with time - a risk higher somewhat for photography art? Kinda sorta?) As to cross cultural, does photographic art translate as readily? ??? History and interconnectedness across the arts is probably the same with photography as with any other; and same as to being works of individuals. But do we have sufficient history with photography <em>as</em> art to really say with certainty that in all those listed elements <em>photographic</em> art is absolutely on par with all those better established forms? Or are we beyond such reservations by now?</p>

<p>The OP associates high art with exclusivity, rarity and high monetary value, but those are only partial attributes mostly controlled by a handful of people. You can make photography rare and exclusive in the hopes of commanding high prices, and many have tried, but that neither augments nor diminishes it as an art form.</p>

<p>Academic institutions have acknowledged photography to be high art which in itself should be adequate validation. </p>