Can photography be art?
Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to debate weather or not photography can be an art.
Photography can definitely be art, I will not how ever claim that all photography is art or that every photo taken is a peace of art.
A creative photographer can create photos that show the world just as the way it is, or can distort reality. There is room for creativity in the framing, lighting, and in some cases the photographers editing of the shot.
Art also often conveys beauty and there are defiantly some beautiful photos like those made by Ansel Adams.
Another important part of art is conveying ideas or feelings and Dorothea Lange's photography during the great depression invokes feelings.
That has is a link to some pretty cool created images. It would be pretty safe to say that Mr. Putra's work is a very different thing than tracing something.
That is a painting you should look at now if you can, I will talk about it later in my argument but it will make more sense if you look at it now
If someone was to paint me, that would in most cases fall safely into the title of art. Paintings of landscapes are called art, same for paintings of animals. They are recreating visuals from the world, photography does the same. If photography is the same as tracing are paintings of real things frowned upon?
I will ask some more questions of you,
If a photo is not created what is it?
Is there anything wrong with the artificial?
I will also ask you does the aid of technology disqualify works from being called art? Does it make it "artificial"?
If that is the case that means if I draw something on a Wacom tablet it is not art.
I would like to introduce you to a piece of technology that paints, Edavid. Edavid is a robot that paints, and that painting from the second link is one of Edavid's paintings. So is that painting art? If it is not art what is it? I see no reason the tools used for photograthy make it into somthing other than art.
link to Edavids website: https://www.informatik.uni-konstanz.de...
Your point that someone drawing a picture of you is the same as taking a picture of someone leaves out how the person who is drawing has to use a little more effort than someone using a camera. Not exactly the same thing. As for the comparison between a wacom tablet and a camera amount of effort can be considered another difference. With a camera one waits and clicks a button to capture a part of reality while someone drawing it uses (a) body part(s) that can manipulate objects to recreate it themselves and in general use more effort.
My thoughts on the robot that draws pictures? I think this robot you describe is basically a toned down camera so whether what it creates art or not depends on how detailed the process is." Is it a program that requires people with coding knowledge to input information to create a photo or an actual toned down camera?
I am going to tell you about a of story, a personal experience, to explain why effort does not matter when it comes to the creation of art. I went to an art school for a good amount of years. I as I think you can guess took photos, and I had a friend, Max, who was painter. So for this one project that was worth a pretty big grade. Max busted out a drawing in night and turned it in. I however had to convinced someone to module for me, set up my camera and tripod, in the snow is might add, and got sick. Even after all of that, I ended up shooting again because I thought it would be cool if I could have some water at the feet of my model. so this time and walked out into a cold lake and ended up getting a couple of shots I liked. Then I took the shots I liked and spent some time trying to get them just right, before turing one in. We got the same grade, but I defiantly put in more effort.
Voltaire according to legend, and it is most likely just legend, wrote Candide in 3 days. Effort and time are not dictators of quality, and they do not say if something is art or not.
Look at some of the photos for national geographic and read the storeys behind getting them then think about if they take less effort.
Sometimes photographers do not wait for something to capture but instead make something worth catering.
here is another set of images from Visual News that shows something be made to be a photo
Edavid is a computer ruining a specialized program. It is connected to welding arm with a paint brush attached at the end, and a camera "eye"
Exactly, racking leaves takes a lot of effort, does that mean it is an art? I would most likely say no.
A sculptor might but forward less effort than a painter does that mean that either persons work is not art? I see no reason they both can't be art
You said in round 3 "Your point that someone drawing a picture of you is the same as taking a picture of someone leaves out how the person who is drawing has to use a little more effort" not only is that not always true, as I hope my story indicated, but effort is put into basically everything a person does and that should not be used to decide if something is an art or not.
I still see no reason to say photography does not have the potential to be an art.
What makes me think photography is a little on the other side is how some stuff like going and snapping a picture of a tree or taking a selfie don't seem that artustic but then again you could say doodles and random scribbles in the bathroom aren't either. It's complicated.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.