Photography: Is it Art?

<p>For 180-years, people have been asking the question: is <a title="More from guardian.co.uk on Photography" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/photography">photography</a>art? At an early meeting of the <a title="" href="http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/0-9/1858-exhibition-of-the-photographic-society-of-london/">Photographic Society of London</a>, established in 1853, one of the members complained that the new technique was "too literal to compete with works of art" because it was unable to "elevate the imagination". This conception of photography as a mechanical recording medium never fully died away......<br>

<br>

Great article in The Guardian with some impressive links .<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/oct/19/photography-is-it-art">.... (read more..)</a></p>

Photography, like talking/writing, smearing coloured stuff on something, making a series of noises, gesturing, sticking bits on top of other bits, cutting bits off something, etc. is not art, no.<br>The question the article in the Guardian is confusing with the question whether photography is art is whether what (in this instance) Gursky produced is art.<br>An entirly different question. And since the article in the Guardian does not recognize that, it's not a great article.

<p>That's funny. I interpreted the Guardian article saying that photography is art, including Gursky (who I don;t like). I agree that photography is art. Anything that has little or no value or function other than aesthetic, is art. Art tickles our senses in some way - either performing arts the ear with music or visual arts our eyes with painting, sculpture or photography. Now we may not like certain types of art because it doesn't tickle our particular senses. But that still doesn't mean its not art.</p>

<p>I agree with Alan on this . . . except . . .</p>

<p>It's not that photography is art, it's that art is art. SOME photography is art. The snaps I take of family may, rarely, be art, under various circumstances but generally are, for the most part, not art. Forensic <em>photographs</em> taken to be used in court cases are not art. (They certainly can be in various contexts.) Just like <em>drawings</em> of suspects are not art and many <em>paintings</em> of portraits done at tourist sites in cities around the world are not art. (Again, some of these might be in various cricumstances.)</p>

<p>There is art photography and there are other kinds of photography. Photography has shown itself to be a medium often used to make art. Probably more often, cameras are picked up and used with no artistic endeavor in mind and no artistic result ensuing.</p>

<p>One of the unique aspects of photography is that it is so readily available, also that it is often seen as so literal (it captures the "real" world -- I'm not necessarily saying that but I think that's how many people see it). Artist photographers will sometimes recognize that and riff off it. The literal easily becomes the non-literal in the right hands and with the right set of eyes. And artists use photography in all sorts of ways, knowing all its uses and exploring how notions of art can be expanded. One thing I can say with assurance is that what we think of as art and how we think of art changes with the times. The most likely artists will figure out how to change the landscape (no pun intended) with their cameras, how to innovate, how to see things anew . . . even the same old things.</p>

Yes, Alan, the Guardian says photography is art. And that's why it is not a great article. It's not.<br>It can be used to create art. It can also be used to creat stuff that noone would call art. That's the basic and important distinction the Guardian article does not make.<br>Photography isn't art just because 'a Gursky' is a photograph, and that same 'Gursky' is art.<br><br>I wholeheartedly disagree with your <i>"Anything that has little or no value or function other than aesthetic, is art"</i>. But that's another discussion.

<p>Fred; I agree with you that family pictures wouldn't be considered art. I was thinking about why not? I suppose its because it really only has meaning to the family members looking at at to bring up feeling of love. But the picture has no meaning to anyone else. So does art have to have wider appeal to be art? </p>

<p>I often take progress photos at during contruction at my job to record for payment purposes. Those photos are not art because they have its main purpose for business. However, if I was to hang a particularly interesting shot on the wall, it would become art if the general public find it aesthetically pleasing.</p>

<p>QG: Don't stop here. Why do you disagree with "<em>Anything that has little or no value or function other than aesthetic, is art". </em>I'd like to hear your thoughts.</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Photography, painting, sculpture, etc. are all mediums which can be used to make art and can also be used to make utilitarian pieces.</p>

<p>You can paint your front door or you can paint a portrait. You can sculpt stone into a lintel to put above your door or you can sculpt a statue from it.<br>

<br />Likewise, you can use photography to make landscape or portrait pictures or illustrative images showing how to connect up a computer.</p>

<p>Some of those things are art, the rest clearly are not. The choice of medium (or craft) does not make it art.</p>

Alan,<br><br>The short answer: things that only say "look at how pretty i am" are boring.<br>To be art, something has to do a lot more than just being pretty, much more than tickle our senses (there is a term describing those creations that only tickle our senses: "fine art". Though the word "art" is included in that, it's not. It, like the colour of your carpets and wall paper, is decoration.). Art has other functions to perform. It has to communicate, and communicate something relevant. It may have an aesthetic component. But that's not that important at all.

<p>I would agree with Q.C. - asking if photography is art is as vapid as asking "Is using a pencil art?" - it's a poorly phrased and nonsensical question. If the question is "Can photography be art" I would say it can be, but it's extremely rare.</p>

<p>The idea that <em>"Anything that has little or no value or function other than aesthetic, is art"</em>. is so broad that it essentially makes everything "art" including a four year olds stick figures and blurry snapshots of grandma eating dinner. If we define anything like that we degrade the term to the point of being meaningless.</p>

<p>I believe that art has to have a purpose - all pretty pictures are not art (most are derivative, hackneyed and cliched). Art - for me - should be a combination of craft, technique, originality, purpose and passion. Just because a picture hangs on a wall and people like it, does not necessarily mean it's art - it's decoration and eye candy maybe, but not automatically "art". </p>

<p>As a commercial photographer, what I do for a living is not "art" - it is a combination of craft and technique and I use the skills I have to make it aesthetically pleasing - lighting, color, composition, styling, timing, etc. but it's not art by a long shot. I try to produce artwork for myself with my own work, but I generally fall short of what I would define as art.</p>

<p>It's a subjective and personal concept for sure, but I have met people who take awful, predictable snapshots with expensive equipment who define themselves as "artists" - putting themselves in the same category as Da Vinci, Monet, Rodin, Picasso, Toulouse-Lautrec and, yes, Cartier Bresson seems a little presumptuous.</p>

 

>>> It's a subjective and personal concept for sure, but I have met people who take awful, predictable

snapshots with expensive equipment who define themselves as "artists"

 

I know a lot of local photographers, all of who would eschew (or have eschewed) that label being put upon

them - even though a few have crossed the threshold and produce what I would call art.

 

I'm also aware of

a couple photographers who overtly take the label of artist and want to be known as one, yet produce work

that's far from what I would characterize as art. Rather, in my eyes, their work speaks strongly to the idea of "trying really hard to

produce art." It's interesting to me how that shows up so clearly in work.

<p>AK: <em>"...I agree with you that family pictures wouldn't be considered art...."</em></p>

<p>Maybe that money grubber, Van Eyck, was running a "couples" special one month, and accidentally dashed off: http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/the-arnolfini-marriage-jan-van-eyck.jpg . ;-)</p>

<p>Back to your regularly scheduled programming.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

Painting a house isn't art....painting a

Picasso (or other) is art, it moves the

soul of the viewer and the painter.

Forensic photography isn't art, other

photography, depending on if it moves

the soul of the viewer or photog, is.

 

All depends on the creation of emotion.

<p>Art can have utilitarian value as well. When an architect designs a building to meet his or hers aethic value, to the people who work in it it's use is for business. However, for people standing outside and admiring it, it is art as well. Same with porcelain drinking cups, and thousands of other objects that have a purpose other than aesthetic. </p>

<p>But what makes it art, is its aesthetic value. I agree with others that aesthetic is limiting in that it could be compelling in others ways such as bringing out feelings. But these all have no real utilitarian purpose in themselves. If a painting of Madonna and child brings out feelings of faith, the artwork doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing and it's still art. But again, it has no direct utilitarian value other than what it does to your feelings. </p>

<p>Art is a head trip.</p>

<p><<<<em>I'm also aware of a couple photographers who overtly take the label of artist and want to be known as one, yet produce work that's far from what I would characterize as art. Rather, in my eyes, their work speaks strongly to the idea of "trying really hard to produce art." It's interesting to me how that shows up so clearly in work.</em>>>></p>

<p>Good point, Brad. Something else I've noticed in addition. Some photographers are trying so hard <em>not</em> to be artists that <em>that</em> becomes self conscious and also notable in their work. I think what you're rightly pointing out, or at least the way I come at it, is that it's best to go about one's task and do it with dedication and commitment and not worry too much about how it is or isn't labeled.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p>Alan, I don't think it has to be one or the other, all or nothing. The people looking at the building don't just have to be appreciating it without purpose in mind. They, too, can have a sense of its purpose. And its fulfilling its purpose can be part of the aesthetic experience. I don't have to extract Dorothea Lange's work from the realities it documents in order to appreciate it aesthetically. As a matter of fact, I think it would be aesthetic malpractice to just see her photos as shapes, forms, light and shadow, facial expressions, gestures, beautifully put together. I can go into that mode as a viewer . . . let's call it the more "abstract" mode of appreciation. But "aesthetic" and "art" go beyond the abstract. Content is important, and purpose is often very much part of content. Lange was shooting for a reason other than making beautiful photos to look at in galleries, museums, and books. Those reasons are part of the aesthetic and artistic experience.</p>

>>> Something else I've noticed in addition. Some photographers are trying so hard not to be artists that

that becomes self conscious and also notable in their work.

 

Perhaps it's odd, but of all the photographers I know, or are aware of, I have *never* encountered anyone

that is trying hard to "not create art" or eschew the artist label; let alone that quest showing in their work. Sure,

since anything is possible, no doubt there are some, somewhere...

<p>"... it's best to go about one's task and do it with dedication and commitment and not worry too much about how it is or isn't labeled."<br>

Agreed. It's about the work, not the label.</p>

It's about why (more than what, perhaps) the work should be, and how well it succeeded in being what it was supposed to become.

<blockquote>

<p>Content is important, and purpose is often very much part of content. Lange was shooting for a reason other than making beautiful photos to look at in galleries, museums, and books. Those reasons are part of the aesthetic and artistic experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All very good points Fred. But I'm wondering, does art have any interactive relationship with the viewer other than sensual or mental feelings about one thing or another. For example, a person riding a merry-go-round has a delightful experience but we wouyldn't call what he is doing "art". After he steps off, however, and admires the wooden horses, it now becomes art. Does art have no physical experience, rather just sensual and mental?</p>

<p>Art can be very physical, IMO. I have all kinds of physical reactions to art, from pangs of loneliness to nausea at some great films to tears from music. As far as art itself being physical, sure. Dance and theater might be the most obvious but there is physicality at play in most, if not all, the arts.</p>

<p>It just seems to happen that the act of riding the carousel isn't art but that's not because it's a physical act, I think. It's because it just doesn't happen to be a physical act that's art or part of art. Many physical acts are acts of art.</p>

<p>"<em>This conception of photography as a mechanical recording medium never fully died away</em>"</p>

<p>Well of course it could still be used in that manner, but these days especially with Photoshop there is no denying that photography is an art.</p>

<p>Harry, I don't quite see what Photoshop has to do with it. I mean, sure, Photoshop can be used as part of the process in creating art, but it doesn't (IMO) make photographs more or less likely to be art. I don't think there's been denying that photography is one of the arts (though, as stated, all photographs are certainly not art) since at least the time of Stieglitz . . . and from the present day we have the luxury to look back even to times when photographs weren't considered art and we can now consider some of them art. Which just shows to go you! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art can be very physical, IMO. I have all kinds of physical reactions to art, from pangs of loneliness to nausea at some great films to tears from music. As far as art itself being physical, sure. Dance and theater might be the most obvious but there is physicality at play in most, if not all, the arts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But those reactions come from feelings not physical interaction with the art object. Even dancing is art to the viewer but not to the dancer. The painter painting is not art. Art occurs at the end with the object that is experienced by the viewer.</p>

<p><<<<em>Even dancing is art to the viewer but not to the dancer. The painter painting is not art. Art occurs at the end with the object that is experienced by the viewer.</em>>>></p>

<p>There, I'm afraid we disagree. Dancing is (IMO) art to the dancer. Photographing is art to the photographer (at least the one who is an artist). Why isn't the "painter painting" art? I don't think of art as only a product.</p>

<p>And even if one were to limit art to the product experienced (as opposed to the making) . . . You talked about architecture before. A viewer may very well stand outside admiring the building as art. But the aesthetic experience will be much more complete when that person actually walks inside and through the building. That's a very physical interaction. We aren't commonly allowed to touch sculptures. But one can certainly get physical with a sculpture (outside of a museum unless the museum allows touching).</p>

<p>Art, IMO, is not just about about the audience. It is about the maker and the making as well. </p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by <em>"those reactions come from feelings not physical interaction with the art object"</em>. Feelings are physical -- very physical. Otherwise I doubt we'd feel them. No? The reason you are feeling something (which is a process of your nervous system) is that you are physically reacting to something. You <em>hear</em> the music and you respond with feelings. You <em>see</em> the painting and respond. It seems to me very much about physical interaction (as well as emotional, which is physically based anyway).</p>

<p>I don't disagree. I suppose it can be the total experience. </p>

The process of creating something is not that something itself, but the process of creating that something.<br>Sounds silly to put it in this overly obvious way, but it looks like it is necessary to do so.<br><br>Art is the intent, the reception of and reaction to that, the communication, the (dare i say it?) meaning. Not the craft that lead to turning the intent into something that changes other people's perception of the world they live in.<br><br>Physical vs intellectual/emotional?<br>Does not matter at all. That pertains to perception, not to what the (to put it in words from a communication context) sender intended, nor to what the receiver makes of it.<br>It matters not whether the sender moved his lips, changed the shape of his mouth and expelled air through a slit in his throat, or whether the receiver had a tiny skin set in motion by pressurized air, moving little bony structures that induce a sensor to send electrical signals to a mass of nerves.<br>What matter is what the one guy said and how the other guy understood what was said. What it was that made the one guy say that particular thing and how it changed the other guys take on things.