Is Photography An Art Or Just For Folk Who Can't Draw?

Question

As someone who likes to go out snapping away with the camera I often get drawn into debates by enthusiasts about whether photography can really be classified as art. My feeling is it is more technical illustration than art. The types of photos I take, such as rugby, glamour and the odd wedding can hardly be called art. So what do you think? Is it an art or something else?

Answer 1

All it takes is to compare a GOOD photograph with a BAD one to settle the debate for any, particular individual.

Was Rembrandt an artist, or, just a very good illustrator and draftsman? Just because he knew where to daub his paint, did that make him an artist, or just a decent craftsman?

Van Gogh's works look nothing like Rembrandt's and neither does Pollak's. What quality of their works make them artists? Once one is able to answer this question, one can apply the same standards and decide if Ansel Adams was, or was not an artist. Can any, random tourist, given the proper equipment and a bit of training, capture an image of Yosemite's Half Dome, equal to those of Adam's? AND do it consistantly?

Extend this process to all the so-called arts. Are dancers artists or just good athletes? Are singers artists? Composers? Actors? Acrobats? Comedians? Writers?

If a person manages to create only a single piece of recognized art, in his entire lifetime, is THAT person an artist?

Each individual can make his or her own determination. But it is the consensus of all of us that write the definition.

Answer 2

Some years ago, my late wife and I went to a gallery showing of some (at that time) well known artist. The flagship painting was in a room by itself and available for viewing by a select audience (those with ready cash).

It was nicely lit. In fact, a big part of the gallery owner's point about the picture was that it changed as you changed the lighting and she demonstrated that in every conceivable way.

You could make it whatever you wanted by changing the lighting and, if you added in the fact that the artist (whoever it was) was 'hot' and the demand for his work was growing, of course we would see the investment potential. A mere $25,000 for 'one of his largest canvases'.

I didn't want the painting, or care about it. It only took 5 minutes before I was bored with it. My wife felt the same way, but it took her longer. She was thinking in terms of how it might fit the living room's existing color scheme. It would, but it bored her, too.

Art is what remains after the novelty and wow factor wear out. It's the wheat remaining after the fickle winds of fashion blow away the chaff. Anybody remember the Keen(?) paintings of the kids with the big eyes? Try and sell one on e-bay.

If a piece of 'artwork' doesn't say something, it's decoration. If someone produces that statement intentionally, they are an artist (at least at that time) and what they produce is art. Photography is a medium where that is as true as it is of every other medium.

No method of producing art by through some virtue of the method itself elevates the final result to the level of art. That is also true of every medium.

The question can't be is 'Photography art?' It's a meaningless question only good for meaningless debates. The only question that can be asked is 'Can someone produce art using photography as the medium?' and the answer to that is yes.

The point is made that today's camera do so much automatically. So? There are billions of photographs taken each year all over the world. How many of them ever get to the level of being 'art' even accidentally? It doesn't really matter though, since art requires intentionality. Accidents don't count unless you can reproduce them in the future and use them intentionally. The first thing remains an accident.

Vance

Answer 3

Is painting for people who cant take photos? I met a lof of painters in art school who couldnt take a decent photo to save their lives, but does this somehow negate their creative as well as technical talents/skills.
Like you pointed out with your own photography, certainly not all photographs are art. But then again the same thing can be said about paintings, those paint-by-numbers oil paintings you see in gas stations, they can hardly be called art, let alone called a painting.
I am not sure how often you visit art museums, in particular modern art museums, but medium itself is not a good indicator of whether something can be classified as art or not. As for photography: museums, and art history books have long since determined that photography can be included as an art.
Perhaps what you need is to really look into what the definition of art is. You will find that art is not merely making pretty pictures, or illustrating that you have a technical mastery of the medium you are working at. At the apex of art is creativity.

Answer 4

Photography is an art, no doubt. If it was just for folks who can't draw, then anyone could make great pictures.

You may think that what you do isn't art, but I tell you, I don't think Jackson Pollack is art.

Answer 5

I can draw pretty well - I draw caricatures in high school, among many other stuff that I draw.

I also take pictures with my camera. I've been paid a few times for some work.

For me, drawing can be called as art, and so does photography. It depends on who draws what, and who takes a picture of what.

Answer 6

Even though your not taking other style photos it is most definatly an art. Have you ever seen pictures of lightining?
You have to know what your doing to get great pic's. Knowing what lens, what speed film, the right lighting, good contrast, filters and all the rest can make you take good pictures, it becomes art when you look at something to photograph and "FEEL" it. When you look into the face of a crying child and see the beauty, or look at an old man sitting on a park bench and feel your looking at time that could dissappear in the next breath. Or you look up at the clouds forming and feel the power of nature. You can even get to the point your pictures are art. That rugby player who puts so much of themselves in the effort of playing the game their emotions are shown on their face. That picture could be art in the right format, say a collage of those type of pictures. Weddings, oh there's art there, there are so many emotions on the faces of the people in a wedding. You can see love, joy, happiness, nervousness, apprehention, some times even envy and jealousy. The shot of the little ring bearer walking down the asile with his tounge peeking out because he's trying so hard not to drop it. It's not only cute in the right context it's art. One of my favorite books is "Pictures", a Coffee Table Book of Life. Evey picture is in black and white. The pictures are of people working, walking, sitting, venders calling out for people to buy what ever they are selling. The couple in the park walking barefoot in the grass, arms around each other, and the picture is taken from behind. The older couple with her shaking her finger at him, and the look on his face of "here we go again". Art is what you feel, technical illustration is what you do. So get out there with your cameras, look at the beauty in the lone dandylion in a sea of green grass, the reflection of a girl looking in the window at a really expensive dress she knows she'll never buy. The big bright eyes of a child being handed an ice cream. The goofy looking dog, a kitten in the window of a house. The one sole plant on a window sill of an apartment where all the other windows are closed, and draped. You'll find your art you just have to look. I just wish I had the equipment as I can see art in places you'd never believe. I think the real trick is to love life, you then start to see things different, don't let the daily grind blind you.

Answer 7

Look at anything by Ansel Adams, David Muench, Dorothea Lange, Edward Weston, Minor White, Gordon Parks, Monte Zucker, Jerry Uelsmann, Margaret Bourke-White and tell me that isn't art.

The painter begins with a blank canvas. He/she chooses what elements to include or exclude. The photographer begins with a finished scene. His/her skill with choosing a lens, filters, angle of view, composition, lighting all determine the finished photograph.

Answer 8

It's for people who can't paint. Judging by what I've seen some people call art, it can be art.

Answer 9

This site contains photography tutorials and courses for you to study at your own pace. https://tr.im/M7AKo

To get started, all you need is a camera, whether it be the latest digital camera or a traditional film-based apparatus!

Read about what is ISO, aperture and exposure. Discover different types of lenses and flash techniques. Explore portrait photography, black and white photography, HDR photography, wedding photography and more.

Answer 10

photography is definitely art because of using a different form of canvas than what the painter's use.