Photography as an art form

The nature of photography is puzzling. For me, photography is an art form. It

just happens to have other purposes - surveillance, journalism, business,

science, and of course for the purpose of recalling significant moments in

ones life....Is it important to put everything into categories? Should there

be only 2 categories-'photography as an art form' and 'all other types of

photos'

Doesn't matter. Words are just words. Getting great pictures is the goal.

All art forms are put to work for utilitarian, economic, political and societal purposes.

It's an interesting question, especially for me who is having a real hard time grasping the idea that photography can be be considered to be an art form.

<br>

I think the short answer is that since anything really can be considered to be art, then most mediums used by artists also have additional purposes. A drawing could be art of it could be a floor plan for my living room. Food could be considered art, or it could just be science and nutrition. the list goes on.

<br>

I guess it's really up to the individual to decide what they want to do with a particular medium. For me, photography is just about capturing a moment. If I can apply aesthetic principals to my pictures to make them more interesting, then great.

I don't see that as important. Many objects are considered "art" now that started out with entirely different intents. Example: grant the ridiculous assumption that if it's in a museum, it's art (at least to someone). Many of those objects were just artifacts before they were art, and before that they were communication, or storage, or armor, or whatever else.

 

Purpose at creation doesn't necessarily equal long-term value or use of the creation.

I've never seen any point in a category called "ART Photography". A photograph in ANY genre can be ART if it is considered such by the viewer. There are pictures of bees that are "art", as there are of buildings, landscapes, portraits or any other category you care to name. However, I have never seen a photo called an "Art photo" that didn't fit into an existing or emerging genre. Calling something an art photo is an attempt to elevate it's "quality and worth" without prior critical review.

Marshall Goff writes:<P><I>It's an interesting question, especially for me who is having a real hard time grasping the idea that photography can be be considered to be an art form.</I><P>Can you elaborate on why you think that?

Man Ray asked an important question once: "Is art photography?"

Ellis,<br>

My comment was really just a reflection of my general lack of understanding and appreciation of what art is. Since anything can be considered art, and the definition is so broad and subjective, it's hard for me to look at any given work and accept it as such.<br>It's certainly not meant as a disparaging comment. I can appreciate the elements which make up art (skill, message, symbols, etc.) but the final product doesn't necessarily add up to me.<br>If I see a great painting, I would just call it a great painting, while the person next to me would call it art. It's just semantics really.

Mark... and the next guy to look at the same painting might consider it complete drivel. The opinion that something is "art" is completely subjective and personal.

?A man who uses his hands is a laborer. One who uses his hands and mind is a craftsman. He who uses his hands, and his mind, and his heart is an artist.?

Does it really matter if photography is art? What is art anyway? Sure, we can take this discussion in that direction and go on and on about what art is or what it should be...

 

Instead, let's approach this matter from a slightly different perspective. It seems to me that contemporary visual art as in MOMA, the MET, or MOPA (museum of photographic arts), is often pushed out to the perimeter of these types of conversations. This is probably because, the stuff we see in modern art museums and galleries today is not always easy to "like" the same way one could "like" a pretty postcard. Visual art these days (for the most part) is actually not made to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing by traditional standards. Most of the time, viewing art involves as much work as making it.

 

Herein lies the gap in our discussion. When we ask things like 'is photography art?', we often fail to understand where photography stands in the course of art history and what art making really entails in the present day.

 

I propose to everyone on this site:

 

Be careful when you judge each other's images in terms of artistic merit. Photography does not need to be art to be appreciated. However, when photography, in one way or another, transcends or delivers new meaning to our existence on this planet in present time, maybe then we can try to talk about its role in the art world. I argue that when any medium attains this level of depth, it does not necessarily matter if the "rule of thirds" is being used to please the eye of the viewer.

 

Please, share your thoughts.

Garry... Interesting comment. I personally believe that photography stands on it's own as a fully valid art form. To paraphrase what I said before "art is in the eye of the beholder". It is not necessarily solely in the eye of the critic or even the museum curator, both of whom, after all, are just people too (though they are assumed by some people to be more artistically sophisticated than the average joe).<p>

<p>

Anyway, I think it would be helpful if you would provide an example of a work of contemporary art (just to narrow the field down some, say from within the last 30 years or so) that has "transcended or delivered new meaning to our existence..." After all if photography is going to be held to that standard it would be nice to see a benchmark.).<p>

<p>

Mike :)

Just because something can have a utilitarian purpose doesn't preclude it from having aesthetic value too. Like photography, architecture (and this analogy has been used before on this site) can be simply another suburban strip mall, or can be elevated to art as say the Empire State Building may exhibit. Can anyone deny the beauty and grace, indeed the artistic value, of a '62 Corvette? Both the Empire State Building and the '62 Corvette serve utilitarian purposes, but both are artworks. Similarly, photography can be utilitarian or artistic or both or neither. That's what make photography such an interesting and diverse field of study.

 

As for me I don't much care for categories when discussing art. I can accept movements and genres but categories are the antithesis of art. Categories are maybe useful if your a scholar or a critic, but of very little value if your the artist.

Art comes in different sizes or values. Of the work shown each year by

committed artists in my seasonal contemporary art gallery some is definitely

great, much is admirable and worthy yet not great, and some is of fairly

pedestrian value but still appealing to some.

 

A part of any evaluation is subjective, but fortunately the education of the artist

and the art appreciator, if serious, allows a footing on which to appreciate and

judge art.

 

Photography fits a similar structure. Some is great. much is admirable and

some (perhaps much) is pedestrian.

 

That it is photography rather than brush strokes on canvas or chisel marks on

stone is of no importance whatsoever. Art is art, and knows few boundaries

dictated by media choice. Mark, you should not worry about photography as

a medium. Even if a very very low percentage of photographic works are

great, the medium is indeed a vehicle for great art.

Is photography art? my answer is NO (go ahead, tear me apart).

 

Do artists sometimes use photography to do their work? Definitely. Some artists even happen to be photographers!

 

Mike, I realize that my comment about "transcending our existence" was a bit too colorful and perhaps a little awkward. Thanks for catching me on it and please allow me to withdraw that sentence from the record. : )

 

With regard to art making and art appreciation, there are 3 questions which I ask my self on a daily basis and try to apply to every work of art I see: What is the artist trying to achieve? Was he/she successful? and most importantly, Was it worth doing?

 

As an example, check out the following link...

 

http://www.lensculture.com/

 

For me, there is a clear difference between type of work shown at lens culture.com and the usual "perfect bug on a perfect leaf" picture that we are used to seeing on photo.net. I'm not saying that one is better or worse. However, I do think that it is worthwhile to consider how different artists approach their work and which of those artists actually end up with something notably original.

 

A few names that we should all know about (I don't mean you have to like what they do, but it's nice to try and understand why their work is considered important today)...

 

edward burtynsky

andreas gursky

robert dawson

michael kenna

cindy sherman

hiroshi sugimoto

barbara kruger

dianne arbus

mary ellen mark

michael wesely

linda conner

sally mann

Garry... no need to tear you apart. I am perfectly happy for you to hold your opinion while I and others hold the opinion that photography is an art form. I'm not harmed by your opinion and hopefully you are not harmed by mine. :) <p>

<p>

As for your "transcending..." comment... hey, I like colorful. It keeps things interesting.<p>

<p>

Anyway, you are correct that the general type of work on Lens Culture is different than here. Lens Culture tends much more toward the avant garde and includes a lot of what I call "shock photography". The photographer's there tend to use highly unusual or graphic imagery to illicite the feelings they wish to create or the reaction they wish to achieve. PN has it's share of the avant garde but for the most part, many people here are just trying to make nice pictures (myself included). I am not personally interested in creating social commentary with my photographs, but certainly don't mind anyone who does. Is PN better than Lens Culture or the other way around. My answer would be "neither"... They are just different. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't need both of them.<p>

<p>

I personally try to find value in each photograph and try to be as objective as possible, though as a human I cannot totally discount the totality of the images I have viewed over my lifetime. I cannot help but compare every image to every other image.<p>

<p>

Your second question "was -the artist- successful?" is the toughest to answer and that answer will be different for everyone...

Art Shmart! Who cares? Just take pictures. Others will decide if it's to be considered art. And you know what? Having one's work considered art may be a curse in the long run. Think about it.

Welding: Car bumpers/ Sculpture<p>Painting: Houses/Canvases<p>Writing: Want Ads/Haiku<p> Soldering: Water Pipes/Jewelry<p>Photography: Kids with Santa/Kids<p> Art: Any combination of the above... t

I agree with Marc Todd ~ it's other people who decide whether or not our photographs are "art". Art is also defined by prevailing tastes and some of what we produce today might be considered great art down the road while right now it's mundane, and vice versa.

"we often fail to understand where photography stands in the course of art history and what art making really entails in the present day".

 

Garry, I think that most people are aware that photography is a fairly modern invention, and unlike other art forms, it hasn't been around for thousands and thousands of years. It is also one of the only art forms that is dependent on a machine. Never-the-less, (personally) I have been moved much more by photographs than by painted images or abstract art. I relate to photographs. I learn a lot about the world and about myself (based on my emotional responses) by viewing photographs. I have no doubt that it is a valid art form. It could be because I've had more experience looking at photographs than paintings.

 

Besides, most art and most artists are not appreciated in their time (slightly out of context)

 

Susan Sontag spoke about the "disconcerting ease with which photographs can be taken". Yes, because of its accessibility and availability, photography is prone to mediocrity.

 

"Who can admire an activity?much less an art?that so many people can do so damn well? Photography?s democratic promise has always been photography?s populist threat."

 

It is possible to create a 'great' photographs while shooting an ad campaign or while shooting or for some other utilitarian purpose.

New Question: Where the initial goal is to make money can it be considered art?

Good photography can be considered art...a good photograph can be considered art...but they are not the same thing.

Photography as an art form? Why not?

 

The 2005 Turner Prize winning entry by Simon Starling was a shed that he had converted into a boat, sailed down the River Rhine and turned back into a shed again. Two newspapers bought sheds and floated them to parody the work.

I never thought of photography as art until my daughter got into water colors. Now when she wants to paint a what ever card for a friend she looks at my flower pictures, picks out one and uses it to paint her version of my picture. She even will ask me if it is ok to copy my picture. Most of the time I think her version is better than my original.

It is no easier to make great ART with a camera than it is to make it with a paint brush or a chisel. Anyone can paint, few could paint the Mona Lisa... Anyone can bang a chisel on a stone with a hammer, few can make a David. Anyone can click a shutter button but only few can do it at the right time in the right light and in the right place to get a "Moon over Hernandez, NM".