Is wedding photography art?

[JDMvW]

<p>Discussion of this question in the <em>Christian Science Monitor</em>:<br>

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0715/Is-wedding-photography-art-A-wrinkle-in-religious-liberty-debate</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>It appears that SM is beating the same 'ol pony (dead) all over again. The decision couldn't be more plain (abc)....<em>if</em> <em>one wishes to be in business, one can't discriminate</em>. Apparently some people would like to tweak the 1st amendment...in order to be able to do so. All I can say is: good luck on that.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>It ultimately may not matter whether wedding photography - obviously a genre of photography as a whole - is art if we agree that not all photography is art. In my humble and perhaps unsophisticated opinion, the only reason this has become an issue is because the CSM has made it so. </p>

<p>The current status of human rights law in the US clearly prohibits discrimination against gay people, among others. If a gay couple engages a photographer to shoot their wedding, it seems to me that the photographer can do the shoot without worrying about whether the photographs are to be considered art. This is based on the presupposition that the gay couple interviewed the photographer and freely disclosed their sexual preference. Then again, the photographer would violate the law by asking prospective customers up front whether they are gay or straight.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Michael, why would you suppose someone freely discloses their sexual orientation or identity when meeting a wedding photographer? If two men go into the

wedding photographer interview as a couple it will be clear. If one man goes in, all he needs to disclose is that he wants

to hire a photographer for his wedding. In the past, if the wife went alone, she hopefully didn't think to disclose the sex of

her mate and probably didn't disclose how much he weighed or whether he was bald. The whole idea that homosexuality

is something to disclose gives me the creeps.

[hjoseph7]

<p>I'm not sure if it's an Art. After a while some do develop their own personal style which could be called artistic, but regardless of that style not every picture in a wedding album can be artistic. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Yes, it is Art if the photographer is an Artist.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>It strikes me as only sensible to declare this to minimize any confusion, just as you would probably say something about your intended or your families, if he or she was not with you. But, certainly, it would become apparent what genders will be marrying after a few "he's" and "she's". Still, some people are slow on the uptake 'tis true.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Robin, what exactly would you be confused about? Would you be confused as a photographer if you showed up at a

wedding having only met the bride who was white and it turned out her husband-to-be was black? Would you suggest to

the bride she should have disclosed the race of her husband to alleviate your confusion? The photographer might want certain info to help him plan

but ought also to be nimble enough when photographing live events to adapt. Sure, it might help a photographer to know

in advance if one mate is obese. But I doubt many photographers are going to seek disclosure of the weight of an

absentee mate during the interview.

 

For a variety of reasons, I'd want to meet a couple before photographing the wedding

and then I could see things for myself that were relevant to my photographing without things needing to be disclosed. If I

was not able to meet both partners I'd simply be as prepared as possible and deal with surprises in a professional and

gracious manner.

 

Especially because it's a relatively new phenomenon, I think many gay couples will openly celebrate their orientation and may even make their gayness a central part of the wedding. Others will take it much more in stride. That's called a personal choice.

[Norma Desmond]

Imagine how confusing it would be to a photographer who hates Jews to show up at a wedding where he's only met the

Christian wife to find the husband and his family are Jewish? Should religion therefore be disclosed when planning a

wedding to avoid confusion? Should the photographer be allowed or encouraged to ask what the husband's religion is to avoid confusion?

[Tony Parsons]

<p>Very naive viewpoint - Art is something which stirs emotion in the viewer. Wedding photographs will always stir emotion in the viewer. Therefore, Wedding Photography is Art. <br>

QED<br>

Tony</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Our local courthouse has its walls filled with framed paintings of past judges each with a plaque listing their notable achievements. </p>

<p>The paintings might be artistic and an art form, but I certainly won't call it art, in the same way I wouldn't characterize mainstream wedding photography as art. </p>

<p>However, decades or centuries from now, future generations may look back and see it as art worthy of preservation in the same way we now perceive common portrait paintings from centuries back. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yes, wedding photography can certainly be art. Here is how we know:</p>

<p><strong><a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=540005">[LINK]</a></strong></p>

<p>Marc Williams is not, of course, typical--but there are others who are very, very good as well.</p>

<p>Robin Smith said it above: "Yes, it is Art if the photographer is an Artist."</p>

<p>As for Marc Williams, he has also given us some [at least] minor masterpieces which transcend the genre:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/5037669"><strong>[LINK]</strong></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Seems to me that photography is both a science and an art. </p>

<p>Photojournalism should be low on the art side. </p>

<p>Wedding photography is mostly to document the event, for those who couldn't attend, and for later to look back and remember the event. Seems to me that, like photojournalism, it should be low art, but not artless.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I am sure that there are many who can make art out of a ham sandwich. (The example given in the mentioned link.) </p>

<p>Sloppy work is both unscientific and unartistic. </p>

<p>Judging exposure in situations of unusual lighting is an art, yet the result is not artistic. Framing and cropping are also artistic, though one hopes a wedding photographer doesn't overdo the artistic side. </p>

<p>I wonder, have any different sex wedding photographers been sued for not being artistic enough? If the ones in question treated the wedding like a photojournalism project, with minimal artistic use, could they be sued? (Well, of course, anyone can be sued for anything!)</p>

<p>But overall, I am bothered by those who use freedom of religion not for what it is meant to be, but instead to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others. One person's religious freedom necessarily stops where the next person's begins. Anyone who truly believes in religious freedom should freely allow others to follow their beliefs. A religion that doesn't tolerate the beliefs of others doesn't deserve the protection of freedom of religion.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>If Andy Warhols Campbells Soup cans are works of art, then surely some wedding photography can be called art.</p>

<p>In 1962, Time Magzine, in an article entitled "The Slice of Cake School," which focused on contemporary art, referred to Warhol's silks-screened 200 One Dollar Bills:</p>

<p>"... a group of painters have come to the common conclusion that the most banal and even vulgar trappings of modern civilization can, when transposed to canvas, become Art."</p>

<p>Warhol's Small Torn Campbell's Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962, sold for $11.8 million in 2006.</p>

<p>If I had that kind of money to spend on "art", there are a lot of wedding photos that I would buy before acquiring a Warhol soup can!</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think some, but probably not many, wedding photos are art. The rest are quite content to be what they are, which would be good or very good wedding photos.</p>

<p>Viewers seeing rats have an emotional response, which doesn't make rats art any more than viewers having an emotional response to wedding pictures makes them art.</p>

<p>Warhol's stuff is art. It's art that Benoit Evans doesn't like. There's plenty of art I don't like, though I like Warhol's art. If Benoit ever comes into possession of a Warhol, I hope he'll send it my way.</p>

<p>I greatly admire good wedding photographers but great admiration doesn't mean they're necessarily artists. As I said, I'm sure a rare few are true artists. And some are probably photographic artists who do weddings to support their art, which are different photos from their wedding photos.</p>

[michaellinder]

Fred, are you saying that a gay person never discloses his or her sexual preference or identity when meeting a wedding

photographer? I don't think I stated that this occurs all the time; nor did I say it should occur. I was trying to

use a reductio ad absurdam to show the folly of the CSM's position. I would have thought you would criticize my

comments by showing that the attempt failed rather than resort to a disguised ad hominem.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>You'd have to be more specific as to which words I spoke that you thought were an ad hominem attack in order for me to respond to that charge. I certainly didn't intend to attack you personality. I thought I was focused on the ideas you set out.</p>

<p>My main point in response to you was that I don't like the idea of thinking gay people "disclose" their orientation. "Disclose," by definition, suggests something hidden being made known or something being uncovered. That's not how most gay people these days think of their own identities. I don't think it's how most straight people think of their identities either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, are you saying that a gay person never discloses his or her sexual preference or identity when meeting a wedding photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I've already answered this in my subsequent post. Here's what I said: <em>"Especially because it's a relatively new phenomenon, I think many gay couples will openly celebrate their orientation and may even make their gayness a central part of the wedding. Others will take it much more in stride. That's called a personal choice."</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was trying to use a reductio ad absurdam to show the folly of the CSM's position.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't pick up on that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I stated that this occurs all the time; nor did I say it should occur.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I probably misunderstood you, then. I thought you were suggesting that it would normally be done. I may have read too much into your use of the word "presupposition." Now I realize you probably used it differently than I was reading it. Sorry.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>How about some wedding photos simply being "artful". I have seen both artful and awful. Remember, they have been employed to photograph a "product", and in the final analysis, need to please the customer. A wedding is a wedding, regardless of gender alignment, and clichés abound, often specifically requested.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>To my mind, there are two separate and distinct questions here: my answer to the first, as to whether wedding photography is art, is most definitely "no!" Wedding photography is the application of craft skills at a very high level to pleasing a paying customer – no wedding photography is of any interest whatsoever unless you know the people in the pictures.<br>

The second question is far more intractable and essentially asks "should commercial photographers operate on the 'cab rank' principle and take any customer that walks through their doors?" I personally would have no problems with photographing a lesbian or gay couple but would start to have reservations about photographing particularly ostentatious "nouveaux riches", with even greater reservations about heavily tattooed people, whose appearance I find literally nauseating, and very little enthusiasm indeed for photographing the criminal classes.<br>

One factor in this area is that most couples planning a wedding will view the websites of prospective photographers and choose one who produces work in line with their tastes. If a given website features only pictures of prosperous white WASP couples, with no non-whites or LGBT, most couples would draw their own conclusions, feel that working with the photographer in question would not be a pleasant experience, and look elsewhere.<br>

Clearly at the present time there is a small minority of gay and lesbian couples who are intent on provoking a confrontation with photographers they regard as hostile, principally Christian fundamentalists. It is in practical terms extremely unlikely that these gay and lesbian couples would WANT to be photographed by a bigoted photographer, their interest is in striking a blow for the cause. Quite frankly, I cannot decide which side I am on - on the one hand, it seems pointless to force photographers to carry out work which they do not want and for which they have no affinity, on the other hand there is no reason why gay and lesbian couples should be subjected to what they regard as gratuitous insults.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Reminds me, Consumer Reports recently did an article on wedding costs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Using a phone number that wasn't identifiable with Consumer Reports, a secret shopper called each vendor and asked for pricing for a Saturday-night wedding in mid-October. Within a few weeks, other secret shoppers using different phones called the same vendors and asked for the same services for a 50th-wedding-anniversary party for the same date and time. We then compared the quotes from vendors.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They asked for photography for the reception only, in both cases, and otherwise made the details the same, yet got different price quotes.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly at the present time there is a small minority of gay and lesbian couples who are intent on provoking a confrontation with photographers they regard as hostile, principally Christian fundamentalists. It is in practical terms extremely unlikely that these gay and lesbian couples would WANT to be photographed by a bigoted photographer, their interest is in striking a blow for the cause.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, which case or cases are you referring to here?</p>

[glen_h]

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly at the present time there is a small minority of gay and lesbian couples who are intent on provoking a confrontation with photographers they regard as hostile, principally Christian fundamentalists. It is in practical terms extremely unlikely that these gay and lesbian couples would WANT to be photographed by a bigoted photographer, their interest is in striking a blow for the cause.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose, but I suspect many just want a good photographer.<br>

<br>

I suspect there are also photographers who want to show off their religious fundamentalism by making a big case out of something that shouldn't be big at all. My guess is that there are more of these than those from the quote above, but it is hard to know.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Fred, as you can imagine, I do not have a raft of statistics at my disposal, I am merely stating my feeling, shared by Glen, that SOME people on both sides of the argument (most likely a very small minority in the case of gay couples) are deliberately putting themselves on collision course in this area. I believe that creatives do have the right to pick and choose their clients, I have certainly done so myself, of course not on the basis of sexual proclivity but simply because they were a**holes.<br /> In the case of social photographers, it would be in no one's interest for a photographer to be forced to photograph people for whom he/she has no empathy, but to say directly to someone that you will not photograph them because they are gay is, as I said earlier, gratuitously offensive and unacceptable. A polite excuse, such as I would make if confronted by someone covered in tattoos, may be hypocritical, I would call it diplomatic. Like it or not (and I don't), the parallel with civil rights for Afro-Americans shows that there will inevitable be a time gap between the granting of legal rights and the point at which these have been embraced by the whole population of the country.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>David, I guess because you stated that it was "clearly" the case, you could make those cases clear. I asked out of genuine interest, not to score a gotcha moment. I wasn't aware of any such cases and was curious to know some of the finer details. </p>

<p>You mention that "creatives" shouldn't be forced to shoot, for example, people with tattoos if tattoos turn them off. I'd turn that around and question just how creative someone is if they can't adapt to folks they don't find attractive or aren't comfortable with for one reason or another? Where's the challenge?</p>

<p>You could be right about those wanting to strike a blow for the cause. In a struggle for human rights, that may just be the case. Progress comes through a variety of means, some more provocative than others.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>craft</p>