Photography, art or craft? Half a$$ed poll.......

[sidney_cammeresi]

(Craft.)

 

In contrast with the agnostics who turn off their brains and refuse to think and refuse to know, in order to determine whether photography is an art, we must first consider what art is. What is the essential characteristic of painting, sculpture, novels, poetry, and so forth that make them art?

 

Art, properly defined, is a selective recreation of reality according to how the artist views reality, specifically, whether reality is benevolent or malevolent and what parts of reality he thinks are important. Art must be selective in that the artist has only a fixed amount of his medium in which to make a statement, so he must choose which aspects of reality to include and which to omit. He includes those things which are important to his view of reality and omits those that are nonessential. What an artwork represents must correspond in some way to reality, not life in another dimension, because a statement about living in another dimension is of no use to those of us living in this dimension, i.e. in reality.

 

Photography consists, primarily, of recording reality verbatim. When the photographer triggers his camera, his camera records exactly what is in reality, no more, no less. There is a degree of selection he can employ, and there is a degree to which he can exercise a certain kind of artistic selection through deciding where to point his camera and the use of lenses, filters, B&W vs color, and so on, but the photographer is ultimately restrained by the section of reality before him. He cannot edit; he cannot include something which is not there nor remove something which is there.

 

And the entire point of art is to show what reality *could* be, not what it is. Suppose I am a painter, and my painting prominently features a beautiful woman, but in order to make her `more real,' I include some unsightly blemish on her face. This destroys my entire artwork. If art is to show what reality could be in its best form, if art is to give its viewers emotional fuel with which to carry on their lives, my representation of reality must show it as being perfect, for although real women may have facial blemishes, that fact is not essential to a benevolent view of reality.

 

This is precisely what a photographer cannot achieve by the nature of his craft. If a power line is in the way, he cannot remove it. If he should like a tree at so-and-so a position in the frame, he cannot add it. This is the essential difference between photography and art, and to deny the difference and group photography together with painting and sculpture is to obliterate the value of art in general.

[jonathan_bundick]

Art: When coming from the hands of a master like Adams.

 

Craft: When coming from most Photo.net posters.

[rob_haury]

I agree with George. If the item in question whether it's a photo, painting, piece of music or a sculpture moves the viewer or conveys the emotion of the artist, then it's art. All artists are craftsman. Whatever the medium, the artist must be at least competant if not a master of his or her craft to effectively communicate the message.

[crispin_agnew]

On reflection, I think I would have to say that No, photography isn't art. But qualify that by saying it isn't quite art. That is, it only just fails to be art.

 

I am afraid I can't quite agree with the idea mentioned several times that if it evokes emotion therefore it must be art. Kitsch can evoke emotions (very powerful ones, as anyone who has studies the history of Nazi Germany must know, for example), as can a Barbara Cartland novel or and advertisement for the Labour Party, but rarely could any of them be considered art.

 

Sidney's post seems to come closer to the mark - the failure of photography on the whole to be a unique creation. Photography most often selects, frames and (merely?) quotes from appearances. In semiotic terms, artistic forms such as painting or drawing or music have a unique language of their own. Photography, by contrast, has an incomplete or at best a half-language. Which, however, is the point at which I believe photography comes very close to being art. The ambiguity of the half-language of photography and the discontinuity caused by it's particular choice of "quotation" is what so often gives a photograph it's power, and what does evoke emotion. But it is never new and unique enough to carry a photograph over into the realm of art.

 

Which leads me to think that perhaps an this way photography is unique. Something (more than) half way between being a craft and an art. A craft that at it's best is able to convey a strong sense of meaning and depth and emotion (far more, I would say than any other craft), but which is still not quite art. But perhaps something especially unique.

[robert_davis2]

" If he should like a tree at so-and-so a position in the frame, he cannot add it."

 

Why not? Didn't photographers prior to the use of pan film have stock clouds to add to photographs? Stock trees would hardly be any harder. Ever seen a fake photograph? You're arguing the craft is lacking. That's not art. Yet I'm holding a photograph that totally distorts the reality of the scene when it was taken. If I can do it so can anybody.

 

Or do you think this model was born this way?

 

http://www.zabriskiegallery.com/KIKI%202002/mr43459.html

[tim_atherton9]

" Or do you think this model was born this way?

 

http://www.zabriskiegallery.com/KIKI%202002/mr43459.html "

 

Now that's art! - of course there is a big difference between an artist using photogprahy and a photogpraher who wants to be an artist...

[witold_grabiec]

"Photography consists, primarily, of recording reality verbatim"

 

"When the photographer triggers his camera, his camera records exactly what is in reality, no more, no less".

 

"He cannot edit; he cannot include something which is not there nor remove something which is there".

 

... and the rest of that post ...

 

What kind of BS is this?

 

1. Hardly photography records reality verbatim. It's up to the photographer how much it falls short of that "verbatim" if you so choose to call it.

 

2. With the exception of some rare scenes, tonal range of photographic materials does not allow to record EXACTLY what is in reality, there is usually something missing right out of the box. This can be further altered by the photographer during exposure.

 

3. This goes then to the darkroom for further possible alterations, it all depends on the photographer. It's up to him where he takes his negatives, as long he mastered his craft - sky is the limit.

 

Furthermore, who said art MUST not reflect reality as it is? What does this have to do with qualifying something as art?

 

It seems to me that those ranting on "photography is art" see this medium as TOO easy to record an image, thus not as tedious, thus cannot be art because it must take sweat and skill like abilty to draw/paint etc. Try then for yourself to visualize a scene, as you think it "should" look given your art formula, and then go ahead and do it in silver process. Then come back and tell us about it.

[psychophoto]

Is it fine art? It can be, but I think that distinction is best left to the viewer. To me,

art isn't created for the benefit of the creator, and as such I tend to distrust anyone

who looks at his own work and based on one thing or another declares himself an

artist. Some people I know have declared me to be an artist, and if they consider me

such, that's fine, but I'm not really too comfortable with that distinction, personally.

 

On a larger scale, though, I definitely think that as a whole, photography is every bit

an "art" as painting, sculpting, writing, etc. It has the potential to be beautiful, to be

moving, and so on. Most photographs aren't, but then neither are most "fine art"

paintings I've seen.

 

So yeah, I guess my answer is this: it depends.

[witold_grabiec]

One of a book definitions of art, that I see supports "photography as art" is this:

 

"high quality of conception or execution, aesthetic value"

 

I agree that a piece becomes ART at the receiving end. Self claimed artists are usually not.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Well, not precisely the responses I expected but here is the count so far:

 

5 think is art. Good to know at least <b>some people</b> here think like I do.<p>

 

3 think is craft. Although I disagree, I thank you for your answers.<p>

 

17 think is both. More on this later.<p>

 

1 does not know.<p>

 

3 could not resist being smart asses....emphasis on the ass part.<p>

 

Most of the people who thought it was both, qualified their responses by saying that in the right "hands" photography can be an art. Isn't this true for all arts? If you had to pick a choice and your life depended on it, what would it be? art or craft?<p>

 

IMO it is not surprising that photography has a hard time being accepted as art, when the people who supposedly care for it the most and put the most care doing it think is mostly a craft.<p>

[tim_atherton2]

"Jorge Gasteazoro posted a response to a thread in the photo.net Large format photography Forum on which you registered an alert:

----------------

 

Subject: Response to Photography, art or craft? Half a$$ed poll.......

 

Well, not precisely the responses I expected but here is the count so far:

 

5 think is art. Good to know at least some people here think like I do.

 

3 think is craft. Although I disagree, I thank you for your answers.

 

17 think is both. More on this later.

 

1 does not know.

 

3 could not resist being smart asses....emphasis on the ass part."

 

How does that saying go; "ask a stupid question..."?

 

Without be ass..anine - the answer for many really is in the Man Ray photograph (who was very muich an artists who used the camera) - if he applied the sound holes to the model before hand, it's a photogprah. If he applied them to the print afterwards, it's art.

 

That said, I don't think it's the paractitioners who decide if it's art or not, it's wider society as a whole, and the art community in particular who make that decision.

[david_goldfarb]

Well this horse has been beaten for a good 150 years or so, and I would have thought it dead for at least thirty. Do I have an opinion as to the answer? Yes. Is it interesting. No, that horse really is dead.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>How does that saying go; "ask a stupid question..."? <p>

 

 

Without be ass..anine - the answer for many really is in the Man Ray photograph (who was very muich an artists who used the camera) - if he applied the sound holes to the model before hand, it's a photogprah. If he applied them to the print afterwards, it's art.</i><p>

 

I see, you have managed to define art all by yourself, bravo! glad to know you speak for all those "many."<p>

 

 

<i>That said, I don't think it's the paractitioners who decide if it's art or not, it's wider society as a whole, and the art community in particular who make that decision.</i><p>

 

 

 

I know you are an erudite and it most be an excruciating pain to read my stupid question and comments, so why dont you do me and the rest of the forum a favor and simply refrain from responding them, after all let me assure you that <b>my</b> feelings towards your posts and responses are similar.<p>

 

So at this point, regarding your last paragraph...I couldn't care less what you think..

[sidney_cammeresi]

It's doubtful whether Mr Grabiec deserves a response what with his labelling my position as `bullshit' and with his context dropping, but I'm going to respond anyway.

 

(1) I said photography recorded primarily verbatim, I said there are artistic elements available to a photographer, and I explained why they did not elevate photography to the level of art. You do not address this point.

 

(2) Again, the fact that photography is not *literally* verbatim does not change the fact that it is *primarily* verbatim. The decision to record one range of tones over another is simply a decision on par with where to point your camera, i.e. which section of reality to record.

 

(3) Your assertion that anything can be made from any negative is bizzare and deserves no further comment.

 

(4) Why must art not reflect reality as it is? Go read some of the bowel movements which Steinbeck wrote down on paper and called novels in the course of his life. His disgusting books are the logical conclusion of the ideas implied by your question.

 

If I had to summarise the difference between art and photography in ten seconds or less, I would do so as follows: Can you make a cloudy day clear or a clear day cloudy, perfectly, in every possible respect? A painter can.

 

At length, it comes down to this: you can wish, hope, desire, or believe alone or in combination with the rest of mankind, but the fact that photography and painting are fundamentally different will remain utterly unaffected.

[tim_atherton2]

Jorge,

 

You ask the question is photography art or craft and launch a poll to aquire the answer.

 

You continue to assert that photogprahy is art - but as far as I can tell that is all.

 

But what is your argument for this being so? From your own work and experience, what is it that convinces you photogprapy is art (beyond just saying so)? That it is mopre than a mere craft?

 

I'm honestly interested in know why you believe photogprahy is art - having launced the poll, perhaps you could go ahead and give your reasons why you believe photogpraphy is art?

[lbi115l]

If I read everyone else's reply, I'll fall asleep right here.

 

BOTH.

 

Mechanically reproduced? If all of your prints of one neg look the same, something is wrong. Maybe you lost your dodging tools and have your hands tied behind your back. And use an automated enlarger and an automated processor. And have perfect temperature and chemical control (no, not a bad thing).

[lbi115l]

"Photography consists, primarily, of recording reality verbatim"

 

"When the photographer triggers his camera, his camera records exactly what is in reality, no more, no less".

 

 

"He cannot edit; he cannot include something which is not there nor remove something which is there".

 

 

-Someone who has NEVER shot black and white.

[robert_davis2]

"If I had to summarise the difference between art and photography in ten seconds or less, I would do so as follows: Can you make a cloudy day clear or a clear day cloudy, perfectly, in every possible respect? A painter can."

 

That's craft and not art. But to answer your question. Have you ever seen a movie? You know a collection of photographs all strung together. Do you think when they are waist deep in snow it's really 30 below?

 

Have you ever seen a painting of the Loch nest monster shaking hands with Yeti? I saw a pretty good picture of it in the National Enquirer. Is that Art?

[crispin_agnew]

Is anyone else struck by the apparent irony that those who seem to argue most forcefully for photography being art also seem to be those who appear most caught up in the minutiae of the craft? As well as appearing to be most unaware of art history, art theory, critical art discourse and so on?

[robert_davis2]

"Most of the people who thought it was both, qualified their responses by saying that in the right "hands" photography can be an art."

 

Not the right hands but the results define it.

 

"Isn't this true for all arts?"

 

Yes.

 

"If you had to pick a choice and your life depended on it, what would it be? art or craft?"

 

I'd have to see it to decide. The same way putting paint on a brush doesn't create art neither does anything else. It's what you end up with.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Thanks all for your answers. All least those of you who were kind enough to take it seriously and provided me with your insights, they are valuable even if I disagree with some of them.

 

Unfortunately I see this thread is also going down hill, as many others in this forum seem to do lately. I have gotten the information I was looking for and if nothing else it has helped me re-evaluate the importance of this forum for me.

 

Again, thanks all and as far as I am concerned there in no need to continue with the answers to my question.

[allen_whittier]

It's been my observation that those who make a distinction between their works being art or craft are good at neither. When the terms are used in arguments one seems to relate to the lofty ideal and the other the practical use of your creative efforts. They are the two sides of the same coin; one incomplete without the other.

[mark__5]

Photography is not art

 

AN ARTIST uses photography/craft to produce art

 

And to think that photography is nothing more than isolating is absurd, the ability to alter the subject before the lens is too great for such simplification--even before digital came about.

[jim_galli4]

Hi Jorge. Got to the party late as usual.

 

ART! When it is. Mostly it isn't. Artists will make art no matter what tool they work with. Photography certainly can fall within that realm. In fact it's one of the more demanding mediums having all of that tedious craft to master first so that the art can in fact shine through. I can see why the computers are an enticing shortcut for those that either cannot or will not do the work but yet want to be creative in this medium.

 

Two or three times a year a musical piece will take hold of me and I have to return to it over and over. Sometimes it's jazz, and sometimes it's Celtic. It always has human genius. Usually the grip can bring tears. And I think to myself, I want to get to the place where my pictures can cause that same reaction in others. I knew when I started this it wouldn't happen overnight. Just within the last month it seems like the 8X10 is beginning to get lots of home runs. I'm hopeful.

 

CRAFT! I make my paycheck taking pictures of Atomic Bombs. Hardly art. But my customers are getting what they paid for. At work I can make 8,000 pictures in one second. And I can keep that going for several seconds. That's a lot of pictures. I'm glad I don't have to look at all of them. (Although it is pretty cool looking at some of them) Personal work, 1 picture in 1,000 seconds is a good pace.

[mark__5]

computers ARE NOT a shortcut to quality of craft, regardless of whether you are all digital or a combination of the two. I see way too many images here and elsewhere that prove this statement.