Photography is not art

<p>A few days ago a foreign visitor entered my gallery and spent about fifteen minutes browsing. She kept coming back to one image and finally commented, " I love that image (an image of Yei bi Chei and Totem Pole at dawn in Monument Valley) and if it was a painting I would buy it". I ask her quite politely why it would have to be a painting. She replied that it is "only a photograph" and brush strokes would allow her to experience the emotion the artist experienced while creating it and photography is only pictures created on computers. I then explained the picture was originally created on film, with a lot of planning and working with a native Navajo guide to find the spot that I pre-visualized. She shook her head and said, "I'm sorry, it is only a photograph".<br /> <br /> Needless to say, I was a bit taken back. Had she stated she did not care for my work I would not have been offended. I can tell when a visitor is either moved or bored by my work but I found her denial of photography, in general, as less than art to be offensive and ignorant. I also found her incorrect observation that all photography comes from computers (like milk comes from a grocery store) to be a misconception among a growing number of people.<br /> <br /> Has anyone else had a similar experience and how did you handle it?</p>

<h1 id="ctl02_Caption-title"><strong><br /></strong></h1>

<p>I haven't had too many of those. Something of the opposite, sometimes, though... where a person stops too look at an image and says, "Is that a painting? Or like, a thing you did on the computer?" And I'll say, "No, that's a photograph, and sure it got handled after the fact to deal with the post-production required to make a print that I liked - just like I spent years doing in the darkroom, with film." And, if I play my cards right, I'll end up with a customer who likes the image even <em>more</em>, because they realize that it's not a confabulation, a composite, or something that I "brushstroked" into existence. They like having the image's backstory, hearing about how I made the light do something, or what it took to cause something to appear or happen the way it did.<br /><br />It really doesn't matter, of course. People will say anything in order to back away from making a purchase without just coming right out and saying, "I don't feel like buying that photograph today." I've heard 'em all, and the same lines are used both honestly and disengenuously by different people. Comments about their budget, whether it will go with their furniture, whether their spouse will like it, whether they can get it on the airplane, whether they'd rather see a painting based on the photo, whether they think it's worth buying a print and mounting job entirely in archival materials when it's just going to be in their office lobby for a year or two, and so on. Some people are telling you exactly what's on their mind, and some are just trying to throw you a seemingly viable excuse for disengaging, conversationally.<br /><br />I'd never be offended by someone saying photography can't be art, because they're either lying or they're uninformed. I'm not insulted if they're ignorant (I just try to help), and if they're such buffoons that they think they'll somehow smooth over some social discomfort or manage to talk me into lowering a price because they've described a silly understanding of art ... bah, I just don't care. I might be <em>curious</em> to understand their clunky world view a bit better, but mostly there's no helping people who toss out little conversational hand grenades like that - they're motivated by things a lot more complex than a shallow understanding of photography as an artform.</p>

<p>There are dumb people around in the world. Nothing anyone can do about it, it will always be like that. Better not to bother wasting time on it - concentrate on trying to get through to people with an ounce or more of brain and common sense.</p>

 

<p>It's an opinion. Opinions are like anal orifices--we've all got one.</p>

<p>I hear this all the time. For many people, art equals painting. You can blame this on ignorance or on badly-taught art history courses. Ask someone to name a great artist; you'll probably get DaVinci or Michaelangelo or maybe Renoir or Picasso. You won't get Weston or Penn or Mapplethorpe. There is a common conception <em>even among some photographers</em> that photography is, or ought to be, easy. Hence the ridiculous obsession about 'photoshopping'--"Why can't you get it 'right' in the camera?" (In the film era, there was a smaller, but similar, reaction against 'darkroom tricks'.)</p>

<p>In my (very unscientific) sampling, I have noticed that this prejudice falls away among people who are computer literate. Those who are not believe that software is magic--presumably you hit the Create Masterpiece button, and out pops 'Moonrise'. Without appropriate suffering, there can be no art, correct?</p>

<p>I think too that this attitude results from the fact that anyone can take a picture. In the age of evaluative metering, anyone can take a <em>properly exposed</em> picture. (Depending on your definition of proper exposure.) I am not an admirer of Annie Leibovitz, but I bridle instantly when someone says that they could do as well as she if they had the staff, and the lights, and the makeup and... I call it the Martha Stewart effect. A co-worker pooh-poohed Martha's career as a very highly paid caterer by saying, "She has all these people. <em>I</em> could do that." I asked her the difference between larding and barding, and she fell silent.</p>

<p>It's not always verbalised so directly, but I get that impression fairly often at my own small summer gallery. I handle those apparently similar rejections, of photography not being the equal of paintings, very easily. You cannot expect to convince everyone that photography can be art. I am interested in the person who looks mainly beyond the method of making an image and appreciates the print for what it communicates to him or her. If he or she appreciates also the techniques and materials I've employed in the darkroom, or sometimes in the lightroom (mainly for the colour images), so much the better.</p>

<p>What usually happens when the viewer doesn't appreciate photography is either a complete rejection of the presence of the framed photographs (they don't bother looking at them), no comment after looking at several, or many very laudatory comments about how they love certain works (and yet do not feel inclined to purchase one of them). They often like the photographer's way of using the subject matter but not the product. These are more discrete rejections, but are not particularly offensive to me. My gallery also has 60 or 70% of its space devoted to other art (sculptures, paintings, most of them being abstract or expressionist in nature) and many of these receive little attention, although they are in my opinion very good work. The percentage of art collectors who visit is fairly small, with most visitors being tourists or interested local people. I expect that most are curious but not necessarily those who are looking for art to grace the walls of their homes.</p>

<p>Not sure that my comments will assuage your obvious sadness of the sort of response you received from one visitor, but we live in a world where photographic and cinematographic (including video) imaging is so prevalent that it is not unusual for many to think of otherwise fine photographs, of unusual or compelling glimpses of the world, as being "just another photograph." Persist in showing what is important to you and you will likely find a more appreciative audience than that one person.</p>

<p>I don't handle it. They're entitled to their opinion, and I'm not about to waste my time attempting to change it. Photography has proven itself in the art world for generations. It doesn't need defending.</p>

<p>I think a lot of the problem is that many in the painting world feel threatened by photography and other new media. Photography and the moving image is really the art form of the moment - painting is, if not dead as an art form, at least in intensive care. If you look around your average city and look at the number of painting exhibitions compared to the number of photography exhibitions and the extent of public interest in photography compared to painting, you see that photography really is well on the way to taking over.</p>

<p>Of course, the reaction of lovers of painting, and painters themselves, is to dismiss photography as not being 'proper art', that painting is somehow more genuine, etc. etc. Who can blame them for putting this forward, I'm sure I would if I were a painter. It's a marketing spiel. Some people who are just buying artwork to decorate their walls at home or in the office may buy into this because painting is, on the whole, traditional and safe (unless perhaps you're thinking of buying a Lucian Freud). You won't get into trouble with your boss by sticking a few abstract daubs on the office wall with a certificate from some gallery to confirm that it's art.</p>

<p>Ultimately, it doesn't matter too much whether or not people think of photography as 'art'. If they don't, then that just means art is no longer an important and vital concept - something more important and exiciting came along. Of course, photography and new media has to be accepted as art (and of course, it has been), otherwise art itself is dying. So whether or not photography is perceived as art is not photography's problem - it's art's problem.</p>

<p>Really the important bit of having photography generally perceived as art is a commercial one - that it helps to sell prints.</p>

<p>I had an image, still life of two single shoes, one for man and one for a woman along with lipstik and head strip, this taken in studio and with back lighting, the image did show un directly the relationship between a woman and a man.<br /> This was on my first expedition, a man came a and asked me if like to sell this image and I told him yes, he said he like to buy it, so I asked him, what did interest him in this image, he told me that he see a wonderful art in this image and he did buy it from me.<br /> May photography not so pupolar like painting to so many people yet but for sure many do approciate photograpy being a fine art.</p>

<p>The reaction from the public that bothers me the most, and which was discussed on a thread in this forum a short time ago, is the question, "Is it real?" In other words, did this beautiful photography come into being because of skillful computer work, or does it really exist in the world? Despite the fact that an artistic vision and skill would still be needed to create an image through extensive computer work, the public is reacting, I believe, to computer-dependent photographs being represented as something that came (relatively) straight from the camera. I can't really blame the public, because I see plenty of that here on PN. Comments like "nice shot" on an image that obviously owed its existence to the computer and which was never seen in any viewfinder leave me shaking my head.</p>

<p>Well she's right on one account, photography is not painting. One big reason I love photography is because I can't paint or draw to save my life. If I had the ability to paint, I would love to do it. So is this woman saying that since I have no painting abilities I have no right to at least try to create art. To me it always seems that artistic people or people that appreciate art are usually more open minded than closed, and this woman seems like she's saying "if you can't paint, then you have no right to be artistic." I don't think that's what art is all about. Its not about shunning everyone away from being an artist, its about encouraging everyone to create art. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If she doesn't particularly like photography, then that's fine and she's entitled to her opinion, but for her to single-handedly decide that photography doesn't qualify as art is ridiculous.</p>

<p>and just so no one misinterprets my last post, I'm not saying that photography is only for people that can't paint. That kind of makes it sound like the JV team. That's not the case at all. For me personally, I am just better at photography so that's the avenue I chose. Photography uses a completely different set of tools and requires the mind to work in a different way, a way that I just happen to be better at. So just to clear the air, I wasn't saying that photography is the JV team, photography and painting are apples and oranges and each require different artistic abilities, neither more important nor more difficult than the other.</p>

<p>Charles, I think part of the distinction is that a painting is perceived as truly one of a kind. A photograph is perceived as being reproducible. --Sally</p>

 

<p>Not to be arguementative, but paintings are also reproducable. Am I to assume that the print of Starry Night on my 3rd grade art class wall was an original?</p>

<p>In this context Steven Penland's post is particularly interesting. In regard to photography, one can ask on the one hand, "Is it art?" and on the other, "Is it real?" In art, reality can figure centrally, incidentally, or not at all, and in any case the response (to reality, if that applies) that the work demonstrates is a significant object of contemplation; so as photographers, we might all feel trapped in the middle.<br>

In the specific case of Charles Wood's visitor, he might refer her to a book by a noted artist, David Hockney, entitled "Secret Knowledge." Hockney saw an abrupt change starting about 1500 in the realism with which painters portrayed their subjects, which he attributes to sketches made with optical devices such as the camera lucida.<br>

So Nathan, who "can't paint or draw to save my life," is entitled to tell his customers that he is a full-fledged artist employing the techniques of a Jan Van Eyck or a Raphael--on modern media, of course. ;-)</p>

<p><em>Charles, I think part of the distinction is that a painting is perceived as truly one of a kind. A photograph is perceived as being reproducible. --Sally</em></p>

<p>Possibly, but I doubt it in this particular case. As Nathan noted, paintings are often reproduced and in fact I photograph/scan original art for local artists and print reproductions for them on a regular basis. On quite a number of occasions I've had painters buy my notecards and small prints and then ask me if I mind if they create a painting from my image.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I have to agree with Nathan. I can't draw a straight line with a ruler. My late Dad (who taught me most of my basic knowledge about photo) never thought of photography as an art either. He wasn't exactly stupid, but just very, very technicly stagnant. There are many people out there who insist that one simply must go through a long, and arduius course of studies before one can possibly produce any kind of "art". I was dating a very nice woman a few years ago, that could simply not believe that I never took any classes in the fine arts. She loved my work, but was constantly dismayed at my lack of classical art education. To me, that's almost the same as saying that some one like Stevie Ray Vaughn couldn't be a great guitar player simply because he was self taught. Thankfully Charles, people like that woman are in the minority.</p>

<p>Likewise, bronze sculptures by the likes of Rodin are reproducable. French adopted a law to try to limit the edition to twelve originals. I doubt that anyone would reject an original Rodin scuplture as not being art on these grounds.</p>

<p>Some famous artists seem to operate studios full of sub-artists which save them a lot of the boring donkeywork of actually creating the artworks. The artist is often seen as the one who has the concept, it doesn't necessarily mean they actually do all the work.</p>

<p>I was also hearing about one very famous painter who commissions someone to take a photo, which he then uses as the basis of his painting. I won't mention who because I can't be certain about the details, but understand he's very open about this fact. To me it seems a bit odd, though I'm not sure how closely his paintings follow the photo.</p>

<p>A lot of painters do follow photos closely for their paintings. Again, it seems odd to me - why bother to convert the photo into a painting? It seems a bit like applying a really heavy filter in Photoshop only using your hands instead of a computer, unless the painting really is showing something different that the photo can't do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some famous artists seem to operate studios full of sub-artists which save them a lot of the boring donkeywork of actually creating the artworks</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/nov/22/damien-hirst-studios-job-losses">Exempli gratia</a>...</p>

<p><em>"On Thursday, up to 17 of the 22 people who make the pills for Hirst's drug cabinet series were told their contracts were not being renewed" </em>etc.</p>

<p>"Has anyone else had a similar experience and how did you handle it?"<br>

Sure, most of my Art teachers at school did no really consider it an Art although photography was part of the Art curriculum. Actually allot of so-called artist including Michelangelo based their art works on a crude form of photography used back in those days. Allot of artist today still base their paintings off photographs. So it's not that much different than taking a photograph and putting it through Photoshop.</p>

<h1 id="ctl02_Caption-title"><strong><br /></strong></h1>

<p>Personally I think photography is more of a craft than an art.  Sure, it can create artistic images but these usually are images of things not created by the photographer.<br>

 </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Allot of artist today....</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

What is this 'allot' word a lot of Americans seem to use?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>'allot' is not a word, and many, many English teachers in the U.S. try really hard to get people to stop using it...</p>

<p>That aside, to the OP, in my personal experience, I have heard it from all kinds of places. Galleries, people, and more astonishing fellow art students while I was in school (most of which were in the traditional studies). Between lighting and some of the amazing post work that can be done, you can spend as much or more time/energy/thought in photography then a lot of painters do in their paintings. Really, the debate should be craftsman vs artist, independent of medium.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I figure a person can think what they want. She rejects photography as Art. Basically she probably figures why is it art. You aim your camera at something and snap it. A lot of folks feel that way and a lot of folks feel digital photography is not even photography. I do not care what they think myself, but then I am not selling stuff. Interesting thing is when I go to a museum the first thing I seek out is photographs so I guess I am the opposite of her. I love to view very old B/W photos.</p>

<p>I've heard people complement a painting by saying, "That looks like a photograph." And I've heard people complement a photograph by saying, "That looks like a painting." So... painting should look like a photograph and vice versa. Painting and photography are too different things, and require different mental processes to complete. I know a number of paint artists who paint from photographs, and they are horrid photographers. So the skills don't translate. If someone can't appreciate good photography, it's their loss. </p>

<p>If I find anything in two dimensions that really stirs my emotions or sparks a strong memory of something that is very significant to me, I'll hang it on my wall and call it "art." (Heck, I'll even include something in three dimensions.)</p>

<p>Money talks. I guess at the end of the day the one buying it would do so because they feel a special affinity to it. This might be a fondness for the capture, the subject or the technique. It doesn't matter so much that it is not art. Also, photography has an immediacy about this. Your snap is the representation of an exact moment. A painting can be that but only to a lesser extent. At the end of the day, if it makes you happy thinking that you are an artist. feel that way. That is what matters.</p>