Photography IS art

[Johnny Novgorod]

Photography CAN be art. It's not artistic by default. Then again I don't think anything is.

 

[NiPah]

Someone signed a toilet, that was considered art.

Sure Photography can be art, why not? art is everything.

 

[jamtea]

I'm not going to try to say that photography isn't art, but it is pretty low-value as an artform. It takes little effort to produce (which isn't a disqualifier by itself), and anyone can do it with almost no skill. Much of it is instantly reproducible by another photographer (artist) if they are viewing the same scene with the same equipment, to the point where it could be impossible to detect a forgery or copycat artist.

I take issue with this viewpoint, purely on the basis that the technical skill required for the operation and placement of lighting, the usage of (physical) filters such as CPLs, NDs and grads, the correct settings required for aperture, shutter speed, timing, iso, types of film and lens renderings of scenes are un-appreciable by anyone who doesn't have the expertise and artistic flare for their usage. That is all based upon pre-processing concerns. The skill involved further in both digital and analog darkroom processing is arguably based completely upon artistic style and again technical ability.

Saying anyone can do it with almost no skill is tantamount to saying that anyone could paint a Vermeer with the same brushes and paint he used. It simply isn't true.

The fact is that there are many artists who operate in a medium of low technical skill requiring simply analogue materials such as a pencil and paper who do not have the ability to reproduce art in a medium requiring a high technical skill such as photography. This might create the illusion that because an artist cannot perform in one medium, that medium has no artistic merits. This would be quite a fallacious viewpoint in my opinion.

 

[DeimosMasque]

Of course photography is art. I'm actually somewhat surprised to find people disputing this.

As a person who's actual profession is photography I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Granted I've met a few film snobs in my day who say any use of a digital SLR is debasing the artform but those are few and far between and easy enough to ignore if you want to.

 

[Shock and Awe]

This guy doesn't know that anything can be art if interpreted that way. Hell, I find many guns and equations to be more beautiful then most art I see these days.

 

[spartan231490]

Photography is not art. It is not an act of creation, it is an act of capture, or at best, interpretation. Neither is art.

 

[Signa]

I'm not going to try to say that photography isn't art, but it is pretty low-value as an artform. It takes little effort to produce (which isn't a disqualifier by itself), and anyone can do it with almost no skill. Much of it is instantly reproducible by another photographer (artist) if they are viewing the same scene with the same equipment, to the point where it could be impossible to detect a forgery or copycat artist.

I take issue with this viewpoint, purely on the basis that the technical skill required for the operation and placement of lighting, the usage of (physical) filters such as CPLs, NDs and grads, the correct settings required for aperture, shutter speed, timing, iso, types of film and lens renderings of scenes are un-appreciable by anyone who doesn't have the expertise and artistic flare for their usage. That is all based upon pre-processing concerns. The skill involved further in both digital and analog darkroom processing is arguably based completely upon artistic style and again technical ability.

Saying anyone can do it with almost no skill is tantamount to saying that anyone could paint a Vermeer with the same brushes and paint he used. It simply isn't true.

The fact is that there are many artists who operate in a medium of low technical skill requiring simply analogue materials such as a pencil and paper who do not have the ability to reproduce art in a medium requiring a high technical skill such as photography. This might create the illusion that because an artist cannot perform in one medium, that medium has no artistic merits. This would be quite a fallacious viewpoint in my opinion.

Oh, I know it's more than point and shoot. My point is that you can point and shoot, and get really close results most of the time. No one can point and shoot a copy of The Mona Lisa, and it takes a great amount of effort to even make a convincing copy of it. Counterstatments like "Saying anyone can do it with almost no skill is tantamount to saying that anyone could paint a Vermeer with the same brushes and paint he used. It simply isn't true," isn't at all what I was saying. In fact, that's why I said what I did: Other arts require more than just the tools to reproduce convincingly.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

Anything can be considered art from the right viewpoint. Photography(both of natural and unnatural subjects), cave paintings, video games, films, tv shows, plays, scripts from the previous four entries, pro skateboarding routines, amateur skateboarding, mime performances, music, sculptures, mass produced products (at least the design, if not an individual item), books, etc. can all be considered art. It's just harder to display some more than others, and it's up to each individual viewer to decide if a piece is good art or bad art.

One thing to remember is it is very subjective how much worth a work of art has. When an artist dies his or her works go up in price, because everyone feels live they'll never see another piece from that person (unless hidden things are uncovered). The same thing happened with that photo. Someone saw that much beauty, and therefore value, in it.

Scanning through the article in the link, I can't find mention if the buyer bought a single print, the rights, and/or the negative/memory card. Now on one hand buying a single print of a digital or conventional picture for so much seems ridiculous when the seller can make more via a digital printer or the film negatives. Even if the print being sold is so massive it requires expensive techniques to reproduce flawlessly, a few mil might be excessive. But, buying the picture's rights and/or the negative might seems like a good idea to art collectors, who blow their noses with hundred dollar bills.

 

[carnex]

I have much bigger issues about that article than "photography is not art" for I could build quite a good argument to advocate that position. And it's exactly because I dabble in photography that I can do so. Photography can be highly derivative and many high end photographers went with expensive high level productions to distinguish themselves exactly because most photographs can be replicated with relative easy by anyone. It's not, at that point, eye of the artist but a skill of replication.

However, that is a lesser problem with art debate. Much bigger problem comes from the fact that today's society by pushing everything way past it's breaking point broke the very word ART. It used to mean work of art either as an object that displays exemplary level of craftsmanship or something that most viewers connected to emotionally without relying on sentimental relationship with author or the subject depicted. Now art basically represents any manifestation in nature. It's meaningless and therefor became pointless to even say or attach to anything. For I just flushed a masterful art piece down the toilet minutes after I got up from the bed.

 

[TWRule]

The problem is that the word 'art' is thrown around so much that it becomes effectively meaningless. If someone wants 'art' to mean anything substantive at all, let alone those who want to understand art as a specific form of endeavor for a certain kind of advancement of humanity, then of course they are going to want to distinguish art from non-art.

So the question is not what it *does* mean for something to be art (in common usage of the term - a heading under which anything at all can be categorized)', but what *should* it mean?

 

[Rowan93]

Photography is art, but in this 21st century when everyone owns a camera and therefore most camera-owners know nothing or next-to-nothing about photography, there's a whole shit-ton of "art" that's either truly atrocious or simply not art at all, depending on your definitions.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

The term art isn't meaningless. It's creative expression by people. What is meaningless is trying to use the term art to signify quality. Just because something's art doesn't mean it's any good.

Also yes, everybody makes art. Okay, not everybody, but lots of people. It isn't something restricted to an elite in society.

 

[K-lusive]

The way I see it, all that's needed is for someone somewhere to consider it art for it to be art. The creator, his/her intent, the piece's quality and its selling price are ultimately of no concern if someone finds their emotions tickled.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Photography is art, but in this 21st century when everyone owns a camera and therefore most camera-owners know nothing or next-to-nothing about photography, there's a whole shit-ton of "art" that's either truly atrocious or simply not art at all, depending on your definitions.

(I'm not arguing with you just reiterating)

There is often a discernible difference between a photograph taken by a professional photographer and someone who snapped a selfie in front of a scenic overlook. It's almost insulting to the photographer to say that "anybody with a camera can do your job."

It would be like telling someone who does professional photo retouching in Photoshop "Oh I know how to use the crop tool in Photoshop, therefor I'm just as good as you."

My sister takes a ton of pictures with her camera, she has no clue what "depth of field" is.

Now if a critic is saying "This photo is so amateurish that any average Joe with a camera can take it", that's still insulting, but it's not the same thing as saying "Your chosen profession has no merit because it can be done by everybody."

----------
I tried reading the article, the big bold headline

The $6.5m canyon: it's the most expensive photograph ever ? but it's like a hackneyed poster in a posh hotel

He doesn't like it, he thinks it's cliche, fair enough... will he go on to explain why it's cliche I wonder?

Photography is not an art. It is a technology. We have no excuse to ignore this obvious fact in the age of digital cameras, when the most beguiling high-definition images and effects are available to millions. My iPad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at. Does that make me an artist? No, it just makes my tablet one hell of a device.

Slammed headfirst into that roadblock, oh god the pain!

In our world where money talks, the absurd inflated price that has been paid by some fool for this ?fine art photograph? will be hailed as proof that photography has arrived as art.

It has always been art, look up Jerry Uelsmann

Spoiler: Photoshop before Photoshop existed done in a dark room the old fashioned way

Someone has been very foolish with their money, mistaking the picturesque for high art.

People will pay for what they want for the reasons they want to, it's not your job to dictate how they spend their money Mr. Jones.

The rest just reads as an angry rant along the lines of "you can find pictures like this on Google" and "photographers are inspired by the same stuff painters "the real artists" are" which is.... so?

 

[carnex]

The way I see it, all that's needed is for someone somewhere to consider it art for it to be art. The creator, his/her intent, the piece's quality and its selling price are ultimately of no concern if someone finds their emotions tickled.

Well, there are two views of what art means. And one group is complaining exactly of what your group is saying. If it wasn't clear I'm in "work of art" group (art as a badge of excellence).

 

[DoPo]

He doesn't like it, he thinks it's cliche, fair enough... will he go on to explain why it's cliche I wonder?

Why did you miss pointing out this part?:

The monochrome detailing of the canyon is sculptural enough, and a shaft of sunlight penetrating its depths becomes the phantom of the title. Yet, in fact, this downward stream of light is simply a natural aspect of Antelope Canyon. Look it up online and you will find a vast range of photographs that all show the same feature [http://csmpics.com/?page_id=94].

Yeah, no - what was said there is incorrect. Yes, the shaft of light is a natural phenomenon, and yes, you can find lots of photos of it. But no, the shaft of light is not the titular phantom. Frankly, how the hell did he reach that conclusion? I mean, assuming no clickbaiting. And I'll also go it's not a work of an absolute genius and is supposed to be ironic and yadda, yadda, yadda because it's much too dumb to be either. So with these assumptions stated, how does one claim the light is the titular phantom and not, you know, the humanoid looking smoke (or dust?) inside the shaft of light?

 

[Davroth]

I think the problem is that people try to equate something being art with something having merit. That's just the wrong place to start thinking about art all together. And as someone who took college classes on photography, it's never as easy as having a good day and a good camera.

 

[thesilentman]

But it is a technology. Photography is is a technology which allows people to make art out of it. It being digital or traditional shouldn't matter at all.

Spoiler: I personally think we're making this a personal attack when it shouldn't be. Relevant.

 

[hermes]

Photography is not art. It is not an act of creation, it is an act of capture, or at best, interpretation. Neither is art.

In that case, neither is painting. Unless you want to argue Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa out of thin air, instead of being the portrait of someone sitting in front of him...