Photography IS art

[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.

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...

Nice reach, but swing and a miss. The Mona Lisa was not captured, it was created. He sat there and put stroke after stroke of paint on a piece of wood and created an image.

 

[MerlinCross]

Photography is an art. Or at least a skill/tech that can be used to capture what people would call 'art'.

It's like video games. It CAN be an art but not all of them are 'art'. I mean me taking a photo of a cat isn't art, but some of these nature photographers that capture sunsets, playful animals, and breath taking waterfalls I would argue are a form of art.

 

[RicoADF]

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

I think what their saying is that a photograph/movie/book etc are not inherently art, the photo/movie/game etc needs to be trying to convey an idea or thought to be artistic. The idea being that the reason behind the entertainment is what makes it art not the technology used. I can see where their coming from, but think its more of an academic debate and for practical reasons all photos/movies/songs and games should be considered art by default, even if only for legal simplicity.

 

[chikusho]

Honestly, I didn't get "photography isn't an art" from that critique at all.
He's simply making a difference between artful photography and snapping a cool pic with an ipad.

From my perspective he's criticizing the piece not the medium. It's just the first line that throws you off a bit.