Do you classify Photography as a true form or Art?

[Bear Dale]

Do you see Photography as a form of art or more along the lines of craft or something else for you?

[Steve Axford]

I don't really see it in those terms. Photography is a tool, no more, no less. The person who creates the image can use it for pure art or for recording what is, the same as any communications medium. For example, the written word is usually used to convey meaning. We write to inform, but some may raise it to an art form, for example Shakespeare or Byron. That's not to say the writing is a true form of art. I haven't seen much art in the average football post match summary. Some use photography as a visual expression which is intended as art - often it isn't, but sometimes it is. Others use photography as a means of recording what is - again this is often not art, but sometimes it is.

In summary - it's the person who is the artist, not the tool.

[LOK51]

Definitely not a true form. With all those stunning long exposure images around. It brings people to a vision not available to naked eyes. I consider photography an art.

[WhoDo]

+1 for "Depends on whose doing it and what they've done"! For example, Instagram stuff is mostly rubbish with filters BUT some people can produce what I would call Art (big A) with the Instagram style. :confused013

[Kym]

Photography is an art 100%, although not all photography is art - if that makes sense.
Not all drawings or paintings are art either.

It is a way of expressing yourself creatively!

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/oct/19/photography-is-it-art

[zollo]

i do commercial advertising photography for a crust and wouldn't consider the final results as art, although there is an art to running the business side of it :D

some of my landscapes however, i deliberately try to create something left of centre, a little bit (or lot) abstract, to turn it from the often extensively color corrected, painstakingly perfected commercial photography, to something that blurs the line between digital art and photography. i consider this art

conversely every now and then, i chance upon something so colourful or grand, or just straight up unbelieveable, that i hardly do anything, and people still don't believe i haven't extensively processed the shot :cool: i consider this art

sometimes i come across a photojournalist style of photographer, who has spent years documenting something with a camera, and the results are astounding. i consider that art, too

overall, i consider some photography genuine art, but not all.

[AVALANCHE]

I see it as a form of Art and consider a photographer an artist instead.

Between painting/drawing and photography...there are many similarities:

If painting is about the art of inclusion, then Photography is the art of exclusion.

Painting is about seeing light and controlling it for a desired effect. Photography is the same.

Design elements of composition, colour, texture, line are no different between painting/drawing and photography.

Photography, like painting is a very deliberate thing. It doesn't just happen. There is a decision made by the artist to create the image to either convey a message/document or evoke a mood...

So...yes, I would say it is Art without doubt.

[ameerat42]

Yes and no. Neither one nor the other. A bob each way. (With an emu wandering about aimlessly.)
I think there should be some more options.
Am.

[arthurking83]

I voted definitely.

But FWIW: I don't view painting as an art.
I also don't consider drawing to be an art neither!

On a few occasions I've been conscripted to paint, but the fumes of paint make me ill and the job was an entire house interior after renovation. (I love renovating tho!)
On the few occasions I've produced drawings, most observers have described my attempt as "nothing like the route you drew to get me there" :D

Of course there is level or artistry in just about every facet of life .. as already said, it depends on the intended purpose of the product.

'painting'(a painting) is art, but is 'painting'(a house) also art?

In 99% of instances I see photography as art. I'm usually impressed by the artistic nature of it irrespective of the genre of photography(birds/science/landscape) .. when elements in the image are combined properly and it has an element of artistic merit, I'm usually impressed.
If it's a generic image cataloging a subject, I may simply think it's a good rendition of such, but may not be as impressed as I was with the more artistic image.

[ricktas]

I agree with Kym ^^.

Some is, some isn't. Same could be said of painting with oils. I could paint a scene on canvas, or I could paint a house, both using oil based paints. Only one of them is Art.

Not that I paint with oil paints, I am a watercolour artist. If I painted my house with watercolours, then as soon as it rained..it might then look like Art :rolleyes:

[Cargo]

I agree with all the statements made here ......
So its really what you think, your interpretation or whatever floats your boat.
The hand that wields the tool is ultimately what creates the art
Cargo

[Bear Dale]

I was one of the people who voted No, I don't view Photography as a true form of Art I don't know who the other heathen is!

I must have a very large ungreased stick up my backside, as I don't think it's ever coming out :p

I see photography as a technology.

If you put me in a solitary cell and locked the door, gave me an iPad and said that I don't get out before I finished Angry Birds from whoa to go.......I'd get out eventually.
If you put me in a solitary cell and locked the door, gave me a manual to read and a D800 (I shoot Canon) eventually I'd shoot something OK and get out of solitary (even if I'd never seen a camera before in my life) make it harder, throw in a flash.....I'd still eventually get out.
If you put me in a solitary cell and locked the door, gave me a mallet, some chisels a hunk of marble a photo of David and told me to duplicate it....forget it....just keep sliding my food under my solitary confinement door till the day I die cause I ain't ever getting out.
If you put me in a solitary cell and locked the door, gave me a canvas, some oil paints, some brushes a photo of the Mona Lisa and told me to duplicate it...same as David....keep sliding my food under my door...I ain't getting out!

I've known artists in my life, and they did call themselves artists and never did I think they were being pretentious. I've never heard a photographer in person describe their occupation to me in the words "I am an artist" if I did, I would immediately think to myself what a pretentious ####.

When I think of a photographer compared to an artist. The saying "Even a blind squirrel gets the occasional acorn" comes immediately to mind. A photographer has the luxury of taking an enormous amount of photographs that no one ever sees except the delete bin on the photographers computer, only the one that they think 'nailed it' ever gets presented to an audience.

We can get a little lofty sometimes about this technology. It's very unlike a barrister or a surgeon that has to get it right the first time as they only get one shot at it. If a wedding photographer was only allowed two rolls of film to shoot a wedding....we'd see a massive drop off in the amount of wedding photographers looking for work. The camera is a light proof mini-computer, we didn't make the camera, we didn't make the lenses that go on the front, we didn't design, engineer and make the computer nor the software that we use to further digitally manipulate the image further....yes we do get a little lofty at times.

But hey....don't start heating up the tar and emptying out the feather pillows to hastily....it's just my view :)

[Mat]

From Wikipedia 'Photography (derived from the Greek phot- for "light" and -graphos for "drawing") is the art, science, and practice of creating durable images by recording light'

Drawing is an art so why wouldnt drawing with light?
I see photography as an art sure there are technical aspects to consider but there is the human element, the creator's ideas, creativity, expression etc. The true art comes from within the creator in any medium. Is a painted canvas art if it is just painted white? I have seen this in a gallery and I there were no viewers just as a snap shot would unlikely have viewers.
Not every one who picks up a camera is a true photographer (artist) just as not every one who picks up a paint brush is a true painter (artist).

From Wikipedia 'An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art'

[Bear Dale]

Drawing is an art so why wouldnt drawing with light?


You can see it as art if you want to, as I can not see it as art if I so choose. For me it's pretentious and actually demeaning to what I see as true art. I studied art for 6 years at a Sydney GPS school and have a great appreciation for art that has been with me all my life. I would have dearly loved to have been an artist. Sadly for me if I had been an apt description would have been "What's the difference between a pizza and Jim the artist"? and the answer would have been that "A pizza can feed a family of four".

I would never value an X ray as art, yet some people do. And like I've never heard a photographer label themselves publicly an artist as their occupation, never have I heard an x ray technician label themselves as an artist.

In regards to your quote above, I see a massive difference in the ability of the great artists who have given a piece of themselves in their works of their drawings to someone merely pushing a button and capturing something in 1/200th of a second.

Again 'I' see one as art and one as the use of a technology.

Remember this is just my views......

[William]

I voted "Yes" it s an Art , I've had some local Artists (Painting) Ask if I could supply an Image so they could paint it in Oils :)

[WhoDo]

I was one of the people who voted No, I don't view Photography as a true form of Art I don't know who the other heathen is!

I must have a very large ungreased stick up my backside, as I don't think it's ever coming out :p

I see photography as a technology.
Ok, well in the spirit of your examples ... if you locked me in a cell, gave me a canvas and an unlimited supply of paint I reckon I could "paint" sumfin better than Blue Poles but it still wouldn't make me an ARTIST ... except of the kind prefixed with a gender of Bovine! :p

There is no ART in activating a camera shutter, but equally that is NOT all it takes to be a Photographer ... or a Photographic Artist, if you will. It also takes a good eye for subject choice, framing, colour, light & shade, texture, etc. Oh, wait! Those are the same things REAL artists have to consider too! :D

[Bear Dale]

I think I'd even struggle with putting out a Blue Poles pop out - Yep I suck :( My stick men curl over and die in embarrassment.

Yet I have mastered the 'art' of cooking lamb on wood fired BBQ (now don't go tellin' me there's any art what-so-ever in using a gas BBQ ;) ) and I can cook a mean snag as well.......ah the joys of being a BBQ artist !

:) :)

[zollo]

For me it's pretentious and actually demeaning to what I see as true art.


I've seen canvas and for that matter metal/paper/fibreglass/plastic objects all twisted into what the creator of said object calls art. Are you saying "using" objects is not art? A camera can be just an object one also uses to create art.

I've heard plenty of photographers call themselves and/or others fine art photographers.

Oh and is there an artist that isn't pretentious or demeaning to my intelligence?? :-D

[ricktas]

I wonder what would the answer be to this if digital did not exist.

Go back 30 years..we are all out there taking photos, with our film cameras. Going home to our dark rooms, and creating great prints. Would we look at photography differently then? Would we be more inclined to call it Art?

I thought about this from the point of view that most 'Art' is created over a period of time. Paintings can take days, weeks, months and even years when you consider things like the Sistene Chapel. Is the instant gratification of the modern DSLR with its pre-programmed modes etc, where by a split second can create the result, part of the reason we would even be questioning photography as an Art. It is an instant result, in a society that likes fast food, fast cars, etc. And we see Art as something that is made over time, slowly, a labor of love. Something that the click now photo doesn't need.

[Steve Axford]

Painting before Leonardo et al was considered as a craft, not an art like a master mason. The great painters had to fight to be raised to the artist status. Photography now is considered as a craft because so many use it as such. Painting used to be the only way to record something, so people used it for just that. Get a painter to paint a scene or a portrait, just like we take a photo now days. Where's the art in that? I don't think photography has ever been considered as an art. But I have my own views on that which I stated before.

[arthurking83]

You would never really associate a welder with art, yet some of them produce what could only be described as art .. coz it certainly doesn't have any practical value in most cases.
Whether it appeals to the individual or not is not the point .. it's the principle.

The product(or art) is the print, the tools are the implements and consumables used to create the product.

Some (practical) welders, impressively proficient at producing practical metal goods, don't consider themselves to be artists neither .. but their work(whilst specifically practical in nature) is a work of art. The joins are seamless, the continuity is perfect, the lines are parallel the finish is immaculate ... etc.
It may have only been a bed, or a gate, but to see it up close and run your finger over the welds, can amaze if you know how to appreciate such work.

Like Steve said, first and foremost it is a craft, just like painting was(and still is) today.. and welding.... and drawing .. and (etc).


I suppose the real test to this question is, if it's possible for works of a photographic nature to be displayed in galleries/museums/whatevers? :D

While I don't agree with some of the photographs being passed off as 'art' even the major works like that Rhine photo from Andreas Gurki .. sold for millions! ..... there are many notable attempts of photography in the fine art sector that are genuine works of art.

[GerryK]

Like others have stated some photography is art and some is not.
With our digital darkrooms (computers and software) we can create very expressive and impressive images. Pre digital we burnt many hours in darkrooms creating limited numbers of images. Now we can create more images, or more variants of the same image to reflect our changing moods.
Our kit (camera, lens, computer, software) are tools used to enable our artistic expression.
There are times when artist expression is greater than other times.

The key is that any art form is an external expression of what is occurring between our ears.

[Bear Dale]

Polls interesting.....there's two other barbarian heathens besides myself on AusPH :p

[Bear Dale]

Enjoyed the discourse everyone, thanks for discussing your viewpoints.

[Rattus79]

I aspire to be a Fine Art Photographer ... .Nuff said.

[kleinpark]

I voted no, & that's my opinion. :D
It's as a way of capturing moments in our lives that we want to remember & cherish.
I see it as more of a tool that can be used to help create a piece of art.
It will always be subjective as one person see's the image as art, another see's it as merely a photo :confused013

[CapnBloodbeard]

I believe photography is a medium and it can be an art form.

You could say painting on canvas is art....but you may not if you saw something I painted :P

Photography has a unique position to be able to be used simply as a record, but IMO if you're trying to judge something as art, it's the intent and outcome that matters, not the medium.

I don't believe the fact that a photo can be taken in 1/8000 of a second, but a painting can take days, is the slightest bit relevant. In fact, I suspect that's what's given painting an unfair advantage and so much respect over images that may not really deserve that sort of respect, in terms of looking at the overall image (though hard not to see it through a photographer's eyes).

But then it raises the question - at what point could you call a photograph 'art'?

[Bear Dale]

I voted no, & that's my opinion. :D


Greetings fellow heathen ;)

[WhoDo]

Greetings fellow heathen ;)
Converting 'em one at a time, eh Jim? :lol:

[Puzz1e]

Sorry Jim but your example is pretty flawed in my opinion. Just because you find photography easier than drawing, it doesn't diminish its Artistic quality.

My mother has a bachelors in Fine Art and has been exhibited in many galleries in Europe. I could NEVER replicate a single one of her works. Using your example though, I am very confident that if she was locked in a room with a DSLR and some studio strobes, there is no way she could get it all working. Using your analogy, photography is therefore an Art.

Art to me is - the expression of your imagination and ideas. The mediums for this expression are diverse and varied. From painting to poetry to acting and a hundred other disciplines.

Taking a snapshot of your dog is not Art, then again neither is me attempting to draw a house. Creativity, imagination, skill, inspiration etc.. can turn almost anything into art.

Honestly, if people do not think photography is an art - they don't know enough about it IMO.

[ameerat42]

...Art to me is - the expression of your imagination and ideas... Honestly, if people do not think photography is an art - they don't know enough about it IMO....

What art thou talking about, Puzz1e? (The art of puzzlement?)
Your two uses of "art" above have slightly different meanings.

The first seems a "reasonable" meaning of the word - ie, some photographic result that is worthy of accolade; while the second implies the skill in being able to "do photography", not the results.
(Tiime of night syndrome, perhaps?)
Am.

[Rattus79]

Art is subjective regardless of the medium. You may see a sculpture, I see a bunch of left over farm machinery.
I may see a beautiful abstract photograph, you may see an out of focus blurry mess ...

[Bear Dale]

Creativity, imagination, skill, inspiration etc.. can turn almost anything into art.



The thing with photography is there is dumb luck.

[Rattus79]

The thing with photography is there is dumb luck.

I've seen artists throw water-baloons full of paint at canvas and call it art and sell it for thousands! I'd call that dumb luck too!
Every beginner photographer gets that one lucky strike, but chances are that there was 100+ crappy snapshots before it.

For me, the thing I aspire to is to have a high hit to miss ratio, and that in itself is an art-form.

[Bear Dale]

I've seen artists throw water-baloons full of paint at canvas and call it art and sell it for thousands! I'd call that dumb luck too!


I'd call it dumb luck too and I wouldn't call the producer of such a 'painting' an artist because they produced this, nor would I call the finished work art. That's not saying that others wouldn't, nor that they might be willing to offer up large sums of money to own such a piece. There's dumb luck and then there's just dumb.

[zollo]

The thing with photography is there is dumb luck.

ok. there probably is depending on what you are photographing. but is that the end of it?

i personally know a highly regarded and successful fine art photographer of landscapes and he will literally go back to a location dozens of times to get the shot he has in mind. Dumb luck it aint :rolleyes:

[Bear Dale]

ok. there probably is depending on what you are photographing. but is that the end of it?

i personally know a highly regarded and successful fine art photographer of landscapes and he will literally go back to a location dozens of times to get the shot he has in mind. Dumb luck it aint :rolleyes:

But to play a little Devils advocate - Doesn't eventually a little dumb luck happen when someone goes back to a location dozens and dozens of times?

If they go back say 24 times (2 x dozen :D) and take 100 photos each time, you'd hope that after 2400 tries......that they would nail it ;)

[zollo]

um, no. you are looking at it the wrong way. this dude knows what he wants from the scene already, and goes back at times that he may be likely to get what he wants. the photographer is http://www.michaellevin.ca/gallery feel free to check out his work, can guarantee you he doesn't need 2400 tries at a photo ;)

[Rattus79]

knows what he wants from the scene

That's the key phrase here I think. Knowing what you want, and sticking at it until the conditions match your vision.

That is art.

Be it throwing the right colour paint with the right amount of force or persevering until the weather conditions prevail.

They say you should suffer for your art.

[Bear Dale]

um, no. you are looking at it the wrong way. this dude knows what he wants from the scene already, and goes back at times that he may be likely to get what he wants. the photographer is http://www.michaellevin.ca/gallery feel free to check out his work, can guarantee you he doesn't need 2400 tries at a photo ;)

I did say when 'someone' has the ability to go back countless times. I'd rather not single out someone.

Let me put it another way. We can 'worry' about the shutter life of a new body when making a purchase of a new camera. My 5DMKII is rated at 150,000 actuations, hopefully I get a 'masterpiece' in that 150,000

That's a lot of canvas and a lot of paint ;)

[zollo]

Leonardo (DaVinci), later in his life, is said to have regretted "never having completed a single work"
Also heaps of paint and canvas!

[Rattus79]

So your whole arguement can be summed up by saying that because a photograph can happen in a split second, it's not art?

[ricktas]

So your whole arguement can be summed up by saying that because a photograph can happen in a split second, it's not art?

hehehe. It was me who first raised that (in post #19). I love fishing.. and the fish are biting!

[arthurking83]

I don't think art is made as art due to the laborious nature of the particular work.

There's no rule or requirement that art must be produced over time .. it's just that some arts can only be created in this manner due to their inherent nature .. or scale.

Photography just happens to be one of those arts that doesn't really necessitate the passage of long periods of time.

And I don't remember any rule that luck can't feature as a fundamental aspect in the creation of art either.

This photographer that goes back to this one location is hugely dependent on luck to produce his vision of that place. If not, then he'd not continually be going back there to capture his vision.
The element of luck in this instance is that he is hoping that the conditions will be just right one day so that the scene will be the way he hope it to be.
There's nothing wrong with that .. it may never transpire in his lifetime that those conditions will ever be met .. or that they will be in only one brief moment in time and that he needs to be there for this specific instant.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that either ... it's just the way it it.

[Bear Dale]

Converting 'em one at a time, eh Jim? :lol:

Is that an art form? Maybe it can be my life's work :flash:

[Kym]

Pro Hart created paintings very quickly, sometimes in an instant using a cannon (not to be confused with a canon) :D
Mind you, elements of the art world criticised Pro for being prolific; but to me he was always trying something new.
To him it was always experimental and he could not care less what people thought.


Some photos a processed for hours to produce the final image.

So I don't think the time taken to produce the work is that relevant.

[Bear Dale]

Good news for famous photographers or those managing their estates. Feeling the money pinch? That's ok, just print more 'limited' editions of art!

http://petapixel.com/2013/03/31/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-photog-oks-reprinting-of-limited-edition-pics/

[Rattus79]

hehehe. It was me who first raised that (in post #19). I love fishing.. and the fish are biting!


Leave me alone Rick, You know I'm a little slow sometimes ....

Brilliant, but slow.

[Bear Dale]

This thread is becoming artful ;)