Does considering photography an art belittle the importance of life-like painting as an art?

Question

I read about the topic in a magazine called "Smart Photography" (in India) where the writer ridiculed the argument made by a few painter folk that photography in itself is an "un-artistic art" because it uses modern technology (camera, image manipulation software etc.) to illustrate the artist's creativity saying that brush, paint ans canvas etc. are external (modern scientific) aids too.

I see this as an endless debate. Your views are welcome.

Is painting a "higher" form of art than photography?

Boohoohooooo...!! Typo. It is "and". Not "ans". In the line- "...illustrate the artist's creativity saying that brush, paint AND canvas etc..."

Answer 1

yes.....painting is surely a higher form of art..when compared to photography..

A painter can express his/her views..in the form of a painting..each painter has his/her own style of painting..i consider paintings as a form of art which can converse with your mind...

For eg,when you have a look at a photograph(say a natural scenary)..its just the exact replica of what you have taken or seen...may be you can change cameras or the technology you are using..but can you change the natural scenery??

but an artist can....he can express his views...he can converse..through his paintings..he can consider painting as his friend...may be he can make little changes to that natural scenary and make it appear more beautiful in his paintings..or may be make it worse...!!

you derive satisfaction,pleasure and much more when you paint..though the picture i painted first was not soo good,i was delighted at my work..!! it gave me satisfaction..

paintings can also be used for a social purpose or cause...the social evils etc..can be potrayed in a more mature way..but,it all depends on the artist..and his condition..

photographs can also show you reality...but,their is no "life" in a photograph..you can compare and see..

take something like pain...you can only feel pain..you can express it saying.."aaaahhhh..." or something else...but can you take a photograph of your mental condition when you are experiancing this pain??? but if you are an artist,may be you can put it in the form of a painting...may be only you can derive a meaning from that particular painting..may be others cant...
it may consist of anything....give a toddler a pen and paper and it scribbles...that too is a form of paint......!!!

when psycological experts argue that your personality can be judged by having a look at your handwriting..cant it be the same for painting too???

photography sure is an art..but it gives you the exact picture...you cant modify..(may be you can adjust settings like zoom,brightness etc..) but you cant modify things which are abstract...i prefer to say, camera is used to capture the precious moments in life..but it can no way express something much more than your precious thoughts...

Painters such as Hemen Majumder, Atul Bose, and later Bikash Bhattacharjee and Ganesh Pyne defined such psuedo-modernistic compulsions and continued to paint their hearts out...

paintings last longer than photographs.......!!!!

painting can be an eye to your mind....simply saying paintings are "unique"..

so i say,its not the question of debating between painting and photography...but surely,painting has its own charm..and photography can remind you of your memorable incidents..also photography takes a little time..but paintings consume time...

painting is of couse a higher form of art..bcoz...in photography,may be you can change camera etc..but you cant change the scenary...

hope this helps

Answer 2

Photography is an art for the same reason modern art is art. Its the process the effort and the thought thats put into it. Photography may not be as time consuming as other media, but all the elements of art are present. What differentaits a photo from a snapshot is first the art elements(i.e. rule of thirds, composition, lighting, line, shape, form, ect. that all would be present in a drawing or painting). Then secondly the meaning that is behind the photograph, which is also present in other art mediums. Fine art photographs are supposed to be worth a thousand questions not a thousand words. Granted, a photograph can make a statement, but along with that statement should come the question why. Photography is mostly considered an art form because it is ment to give a completely different perspective on the way our world is portrayed. I could go on about this forever......

Answer 3

this is such an old arguement, i can't believe ppl are still having it. Check out the work of Paul Strand, and his work with straight photography. Also if you can find copies of A. Steiglitz's magazine
Camera Work, the work printed there will put paid to this stupid debate. Camera Work was published from 1903 through 1917 and included fine art images as well as theoretical discussion on the nature of photography as an art form. (These are collector's items-I recently saw an entire catalogue of the magazine on Antiques Roadshow valued at over 100K. You may be able to find microfiche or transcribed material on the internet.)

These painters, like many other people, labor under the mistaken belief that all that goes into the making of a photograph is pointing and clicking. They have never worked in a chemical darkroom, developing and printing their own work. Nor have they sat for hours in front of a computer, retouching to perfection a scanned or digitally captured image. As a person who has been doing this for 40 years, I feel that a serious student of photography should learn traditional methods in addition to digital technique. As someone I met through this forum recently said to me, "You can't play Mozart until you know the scales."

I don't wish to take anything away from painters as they too have difficult techniques to master. I don't believe it is a "higher" art form however, although the world does NOT value photography to the extent it does painting. The problem here, I think, is that a photo can be reproduced infinitely and a painting is by definition, unique.
Until you make a polaroid transfer, that is.

So, in 500 years, someone will ask this same question. And the answer will be the same. Nothing is new under the sun.

Peace, good shooting

Answer 4

photography is considered an art in the sense that it also takes a creative or an artist's mind in CAPTURING a certain moment though using modern technology. painting on the other hand is actually CREATING the moment or message that you want to convey to the viewer. both belong in the visual art category but they cannot really be compared to each other because of the different process in achieving your goal. therefore, neither is higher nor lower to each other.

Answer 5

absolutely not. both painting and photography can be beautifully complex compositions, masterfully created, intricately composed.... or simple, thoughtless, and without great effort. they both have their own exquisite subtleties. photography may seem like it is easier and "unartistic" because people think all you have to do is choose the right lens and aim and press a button. there is so much more to photography. you could even argue that in some aspects it is harder, because in painting you have complete control over what the composition will end up like: the balance, the colors, the lighting, etc. In photography, you have to figure out a way to acomplish the perfect lighting, the angle, etc. They are both exellent artistic methods of expression. In either one, it takes a lot of thought in figuring out just how to best capture what you are trying to portray in a two-dimensional canvas or paper. Making good photography takes into account the perfect balance of images, of sharps and flats, of rounds, of light and dark, of heavy and light, angles... and all brought together to capture one moment in time. I could sit for hours and hours just looking at photography from different eras, from different cutlures. Both painting and photography must take texture into account. The saturation of colors. The implementation of irony. The juxtaposition of objects, all these things are used to make a statement, be it one that screams at you from the image, or subtly hints it at you. Both are invaluable forms of art, and I am so greatful for both. Can you tell i am passionate about them both?

Answer 6

No, certainly not. Painting is a form, photography is a "newer" form. And digital photography and the stuff that a person can do with digital is newer yet. Wherever there is matter which is thought-provoking and beautiful, no matter the medium, there is art.

Answer 7

Photography Master Class gives you all the knowledge you’ll ever need to take photos that dazzle. It takes you step-by-step through every aspect of photography – from the absolute basics right through to the cutting-edge techniques used by the world’s most celebrated photographers. Whether you want to launch a new career as a professional photographer or simply learn to take better pictures, photographymasterclass. puts you on a fast-track to success.
https://tr.im/e2aac

Answer 8

As a person who paints and takes pictures. I think anything that has you to express yourself is a good thing. to say one way to be creative is better then another is just silly. If DeVinci was alive today i bet he would have all kinds of photos it would just be silly to think he would just stick to painting. The only reason people think painting would be better is because they haven't taken a good picture. Do everything to express yourself. It's what makes us human.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

this is one of the most idiotic debates.
I myself do not use the word ART ever.
I never argue or even contemplate this issue.
I have replaced the word ART with SELF EXPRESSION a long time ago.
l same goes for the word ARTIST.
aloha,
ferenc
http://ferenc.biz