I completely disagree. How can photography be called art when all the person is doing is clicking a button on a camera. Art can only be made by living things, not by non-living devices. Let's take painting for example, a camera is a machine but a painting is only created by humans. A photo only records what is there, but the artist creates a painting by using their own skill and emotion.
If you are saying that the camera does all the work when taking a picture, you are wrong. The photographer is the one behind the camera, controlling every aspect of how to take the desired photograph. Going back to painting, if you believe that the camera does everything when taking a photograph, then a paintbrush must do everything when putting together a painting. It is the same thing; the photographer is behind the camera and the artist is behind the paintbrush.
I understand what you are saying, but I personally think that art is creating something brand new. You have to create something that has its own meaning and hasn't been seen before. Therefore, photography does not fulfil this criteria because photography is taking a photograph of something that already exists. Photography can seem artistic because because it may look pretty, but in reality, taking a picture of scenery or a building is not art.
Does it really matter that the subject of matter is already existing? I believe not. It requires great skill to capture the perfect picture and bring a whole new perspective into it. I agree that anyone can take a photograph, but there is so much more to photography than a simple snapshot. The photographer has to not be aware of the correct lighting and angle to use, but they have to know how to turn something ordinary into extraordinary, bringing along emotion with it. From this point onwards, the photograph has the advantage of being edited; further enhancing it and turning it into a piece of art. But in my opinion, each photograph carries along its own meaning, and that meaning can be different depending on how you feel. So, photograph is most definitely an art form; it is beautiful to look at, it requires skill, but most importantly, it contains emotion.
I appreciate your opinion, but I still personally feel that photography is not an art form. This is mainly due to it not being created from scratch and the camera doing the majority of the work. However, it was good to hear a different view as it has allowed me to see both sides of the argument. We should do this again another time, bye.
Reasons for voting decision: Con's main point was about how the camera does most of the work. Pro refuted this, saying the photographer manipulates angle lighting and other settings. Pro seems to suggest art as anything created for aesthetic pleasure, and asserts photography meets this definition, as photography can have beauty. Con never refutes this.
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.