Is photography art?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on December 1, 2009 at 8:35am

Your art teacher was full of it and I'll bet if you looked at his art work it wouldn't be too impressive. For one thing he (she) had no idea of the photographic process or the steps involved to get a finished image. If you were painting the scene as a plein air painter (on location) and there was a discarded pampers in the scene would you include it? Even your art teacher probably wouldn't. It is apparent then that the art is in the interpretation of the material being portrayed. That being the case, why wouldn't it be okay to remove distracting elements from the scene? Even a straight (completely un-manipulated) photograph isn't a copy of the scene since it will vary from the original in tonal range, global and local color balance variations, and in my case,usually be completely devoid of color! Art happens when individual vision meets practiced technique.

A rhetorical question. When does a rendering of an object or scene become art? Is it only when there is no expected financial remuneration, or is it when a particular persons individual vision is realized? The line between art for commercial purposes and art for art's sake is very blurred. Another question. If a painter is allowed to take a sky from one scene and transpose it to another why is that not art? Painters are completely free to borrow elements from many sources and combine them together to make a "work of art". Why not the photographer? In fact the very great majority of painters work from photographs anyway. If you doubt that look at the crazy perspectives some of them come up with! Such as combining elements of a photograph made with an extreme wide angle, and its forced perspective, with elements made with an extreme telephoto and its compressed perspective. When a painter paints from a photograph is the rendering an expression of their creativity or are they hijacking the creativity of the photographer? The answer is obvious!!!

Is photography art? Of course it is! At least that is the opinion of every major art museum as well as most major art schools since they include photography in their offerings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marcia C on December 1, 2009 at 8:53am

Nathan

Very well put. I agree with you

When I draw or paint a picture, it is from my own vision, not a copy of what is in front of me. A lot of the time it is just from my memory or vision. The same for photography, it is what I am trying to portrait to the best of my ability.

Like you said, it is okay to remove distracting objects. I also remove power lines if they are too overpowering unless it is for a documented photo of a site.

I just recently did some photos for a documentary for a university and I did not remove anything because of the fact it was for documentary purposes. It was not my usual style but I did not best to make them a piece of art and interesting. It was all in the perspective, composition etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tyrone on December 1, 2009 at 10:15am

Ansel Adams remaind open about the way photography was to be portrayed in the future, and therefore left his negatives for those who could render them to their way of seeing. Photography is an art form in every respect.
Mostly every subject I have shot so far has in some way been manipulated. Though I strive for a natural look, I know which of my works are not straight out of the camera. Up to 20 images make up most of my work, therefore to me it is art. Visit me at www.redbubble.com/people/matsumoto

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marcia C on December 1, 2009 at 8:36am

Some photography is an art. There are photojournalism styles, documentation styles. These are more about photography in the normal realm. Then there is the artistic style of photography.

I am an artist also and that may be the reason I have been told that my compositions and style remind them of paintings.

I believe in taking out just a few things that might clutter the finished image but I do not change skies or things like that. In fact, I take out someones hand that they may have stuck in front of me at the last minute. A branch that got in the shot when there was no other way to to get it out of the shot.

I am pretty amateur with all the things that most people know how to do on here with the filters and plug ins. I know basic editing.

It takes a trained artistic eye and knowledge about how to get the shot to make it a piece of art with photography.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on December 1, 2009 at 11:23pm

It becomes art when the camera is the chosen tool of the artist. Just as the paint brush is the chosen tool of artist painter. A paint brush in the hands of most people will produce a nicely painted fence or wall. A paint brush is the hands of an artist with produce the Mona Lisa. A camera in the hands of most people will produce a snap shot for the crap books. A camera in the hands of an artist will produce something that is clearly much more.

I don't say this to be insulting but perhaps you need to reexamine the meaning of hypocrisy. You say "I will bend a branch that is blocking a view, or clone out a man made artifact, " But then when someone suggest cloning out a branch you say "I am a firm believer that if nature put it there, and you are photographing nature, it belongs there." I am assuming you are an intelligent person so ask yourself "Does that make any sense at all?"

I hear so called purest saying things like "I want the photo just as my eyes saw it. That is why I don't edit my photos". Don't they understand that no camera or lens comes even close to the human eye when it comes to things like dynamic range?

And Finally the art teacher comment: With nonsense comments like that it's no wonder that art teacher was teaching art instead of actually making a living as an artist.

My problem with your comments is that you are picking the things that you want to change and attempting to justify them as being acceptable while finding fault in the choices that others are making. And I get a feeling by the way that it reads that you think that's okay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg maklae on December 2, 2009 at 3:18am

There is a MAJOR difference between removing a power line and changing the color of foliage, removing or adding a structure, or replacing the sky. I read one article of a "photographer" who has a library of skys to paste into a photo to make it more realistic (sellable). I am basically a purist, and will always be one, as are most accomplished nature photographers. Maybe a better way of my philosophy is: how would it look without the intervention of man. As for increasing dymanic range to more appoximate the human eye, take the camera off the program settings and learn to be a photographer, not a button pusher. I have experimented with HDR, and can greatly increase the dynamic range of the camera to close to that of the human eye.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on December 2, 2009 at 7:16am

Check out the work of Jerry Uelsmann. Tell me any way it isn't legitimate art and then consider that he does it all in a conventional darkroom. Small minds make small thoughts. I thought you were looking for an answer, or a way to clarify your need to make changes to raise your work to another level and not just seeking a way to justify the fact that you don't change anything. If that's your position; fine. Don't seek to de-legitimize others who see it differently. Why is there a major difference between removing a power line and changing a sky? So a little change is art and a major change is something else. It's a fallacious position and argument. That whole paragraph is full of contradictions.

AMEN!!!! to Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on December 2, 2009 at 4:45pm

Two years ago when I developed a passion for photography I bought a camera put it on full manual mode and left it there for a year and a half to ensure that I totally understood the relationship between aperture, shutter, and ISO. In addition to white balance, and how to use a light meter. I only recently started using aperture priority and shutter priority mode. And I take all my photos RAW so I don't use any of the PROGRAMED modes or picture styles. But that is only because I want as much control as I can get on how my photos come out. So I feel that I am as much of a photographer as I can be in two years. I also consider myself a student of photography and photographers.

I agree that there is a MAJOR difference between removing a power line and changing the color of foliage. But there is also a MAJOR similarity too. In both cases you CHANGED SOMETHING. So are you really a purest (whatever that is)?

I'm sorry but as I stated before you are Picking and Choosing what you feel is an acceptable edit. There is a word for what you are doing and it is hypocrisy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Dobbs on December 6, 2009 at 4:53pm

I think Greg is pushing it to say 'most accomplished nature photographers' are purists. Ansel Adams was most certainly accomplished but far from being a purist. He was creative and discussed previsualisation and photographic creativity at length in his landmark series "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print". Give his books a read, they are quite humbling.

The only time I strive for exact replication of a scene is when I'm working for a client that needs the image for documentary purposes; i.e. evidence in a court proceeding, insurance claim, etc. Otherwise I strive to evoke a feeling, to convey a thought, or create a bit of tension. If that calls for creativity in the darkroom or on the computer then so be it. We'd be driving perfect Model T's if car manufacturers were purists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nathan mccreery on December 6, 2009 at 7:20pm

When the statement is made that Adams, Strand, the Westons et al were purists Greg is accurate. But then again that may depend on what is meant by purist. They all Adams, Weston, Strand etc) were purists in that they thought a photograph should look like a photograph. As I understand the history of photography, the trend of the day was to try to make photographs look like paintings (sound familiar?) as practiced by a group of "photographers" called the pictorialists championed by a Laguna Beach photographer, William Mortenson. Adams and company rebelled against that notion and formed the photo-secessionist movement which grew into the Group f-64 which many will be aware of. Again, it is non-sense to assert that the only true photograph, and the highest form of photographic expression, is to print the negative (digital file) with no manipulation. In the classic sense of the word purist means that it was a photograph with nothing else added as was popular in the pictorialist movement.

As was popular in the day of Mortenson, some today assert that adding painting and other materials to the surface of a photograph makes it a more true art. Strand asserted that such actions only resulted in "dead things". I agree with Paul Strand. Indeed, most photographers in the tradition of Adams Strand etc. are truly purists in that their photography isn't mixed with a lot of other materials resulting in "dead things" to quote Strand.

I believe that one of the basic problems we have in photography is a lack of understanding of the history of the art, the processes of the art, and the accurate meaning of words. I am certain that when the word purist is used it has very different meanings for different people. In the classic sense of the word purist simply means photography plus nothing else. Some have used it to exclude digital (folly) others have used the word to include only black and white ( foolish) and others have used it to exclude everyone not like them (bigoted).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james f weisbeck on December 2, 2009 at 1:07am

ART IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER =

TO SOME THE GREATEST ART IN THE WORLD IS UGLY GARBAGE

TO SOME THE GREATEST ART IN THE WORLD IS A MASTERPIECE

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mumford on December 2, 2009 at 3:21am

Totally agree with you, Greg. All photography is art and I hardly ever change anything in my photos, just a crop here and there or perhaps a little tweek of contrast or something. I don't even have photoshop or anything else like it, just simple picassa! The eye sees it, the camera takes it, and for me thats the end of it!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page