The Art vs The Craft of Photography

[markdphotography]

Came across this article in my travels this week and found it interesting - http://www.markd.com.au/the-art-vs-the-craft-of-photography/.

Is one possible without the other and are they both interconnected?

For me it goes something lie this - in the begiining there is photography, in some cases this evolves as the photographer learns more about the craft, in some instances the art then develops (pardon the darkroom pun) .

Once again there is not right or wrong just different strokes for different folks.

What do you think?

[ameerat42]

I don't agree with you, mainly because I don't know what you're saying.
That article states it quite claerly: the craft is the equipment and how the
photographer uses it (tools and skill at using the tools); the art is what the
photographer can produce that has some aesthetic value (as judged by the
viewer).

So to your question - can you have one without the other? - I suppose so, as
you can have a person who knows all about photography and the equipment but
can't take a good picture. - And that may happen to the same person from time
to time. So that answers the "interconnected" Q as well.

But as for "...different strokes for...":confused013:confused013

- - - Updated - - -

PS: That article does not seem to deviate from the usual meanings of "art" and "craft",
and doesn't seem to use them interchangeably - which they are not.

[Steve Axford]

Perhaps you are trying to say that some people enjoy the craft for its own sake and pay little heed to the art, where others focus on the art and the craft is merely a means to and end?

[markdphotography]

I don't agree with you, mainly because I don't know what you're saying.

Valid point so maybe I should say contemporary photography and provide some more calrification.

There are more smart phones in the world than cameras. The number one selling camera is a smart phone . You can take an image with a smart phone and know nothing about the art or craft of photography. This happens all the time and the maker thinks they are a great photographer so that is what I mean by the beginning ( a more recent look at photography) which is not really covered in the article. Most smart phone images, the maker has no control over the settings and may have liitle knowledge of composition or other factors - it is the simplest form of point and shoot. This is a case of right place, right time and the best camera is the one you have with you.

When I became interested in photography I had to learn the craft (and sometimes phonogprahers graduate to this notion) on an SLR which is more about the craft than say an instant camera was back then. We probably all now someone with great photographic craft skills but they cannot grab the artisitc approach.

On the other hand there is a small number of photographers that know little about the technical side of photography and just point anshoot an SLR using the incredible array of settings on a modern day camera and take great images.

For me until I read the article I never separated the art and craft aspects and just thought of it as some are better than others and some have different tastes/styles of photography.

Tying to put them on a line was an attempt to show an evolution of photography in reference to the art and craft aspect. Perhaps phonography could be more art related than craft related but I guess to do well you have to know about the art and craft of photography.

So in essence I have probably answered my own question from my perspective but I was interested to see what other think.

Hope that is as clear as mud?

Cheers

Mark

[Tannin]

Craft: the creation of some thing of value using skill and care.

Art: the communication of an idea or feeling such that the viewer (listener, reader, etc.) learns something valuable from the experience.

They are completely different things. In general, you need some craft to create art; but you do not need art to practice a craft.

[jim]

I take some of my best photos with a phone...

[ameerat42]

Such carpentry, Tannin! You hit the nail on the head:nod:

- - - Updated - - -


I take some of my best photos with a phone...

We will figure out a suitable PENANCE and let you know:nod:

[Steve Axford]

I don't think you have to have much craft to make good pictures, but most do. Some people manage to get great pictures with a mobile phone and some use very elaborate gear. Just as some painters work with very simple tools and others with very complex tools. They are all still artists.
Photography is a bit of an anomaly as there are many people who have DSLRs who are just fascinated with the craft of photography, but who have little interest in the art. I don't think there are many painters like this.

[arthurking83]

Perhaps you are trying to say that some people enjoy the craft for its own sake and pay little heed to the art, ....

That'd be like me!



.... where others focus on the art and the craft is merely a means to and end?

Very much unlike me tho.

Only time I really study my end results is to determine what I mucked up with the craft.
The end result for me has always been of no consequence, and many times of no importance.

I like the 'getting out' part to do the landscapes, and I like the playing with various obscure bits and pieces if I do macro in my back room at home(ie. too lazy to get out and about! :D)


And on a side note on the topic, as usual, I'll take up an issue relating to Ken Rockwell .. in the quote that Markd has sat the bottom of the post.



"..... Photography has never been able to duplicate reality, and if it could, it’s not art.”

by what measure is this the case?
Why wouldn't a duplication of reality considered to be art?
In that case, and by extension/extrapolation, the reality itself wouldn't be art either?
How do you quantify if reality has been duplicated or not.

What I read in that (nonsensical) quote is that never in the history of news reporting, has any one of the images in any instance of such represented reality!

as simple example of the issue he's referring too.
Back in 1968, Christmas Eve to be exact!, when the Apollo 8 (recon)mission to the moon and back, when they took the iconic Earthrise image .. that this image isn't a depiction or 'duplication' of reality?
If not, then what is it? Was he there to view the actual reality? if not(and I suspect so), how do you make a claim as he does, not being a witness to the actual reality to make that claim?

Ok, more to the point and a concept that is easier to comprehend:
if you take a photo of a photo .. even tho the first photo may not be an exact depiction of reality, wouldn't the second photo(of the photo) be a duplication of a reality (ie. the duplication of the photo, rather than the contents of the original photo)?

As is typical of KR .. his comments are best described as comic relief ;)

In my understanding of the word 'art' .... it can come from anywhere and at any time, and many of those instances are as surprising as they are strange.

[Steve Axford]

I'm glad you replied, Arthur, as I did think of you when I wrote that. Photography does attracts geeks (said as a compliment, not an insult) as it is an amazingly complex subject, which we can actually experiment with (unlike many amazingly complex subjects). We certainly need the geeks so that we can figure out how the hell all this stuff works.

I agree with you about KR. I think he has got better over the years, but he still talks a load of rubbish.