For those who say that art is made only by a person not a device, you're wrong. The person controls the camera, the person clicks the button, they control what they take a picture of.
For those who say it isn't an art form are just jealous they they can't take a decent picture
follow @camryn_cenderelli on instagram
Photography is art. People say that it is not because it's too easy, or the camera makes the image, or anyone can do it. None of these are true. There are many, many photos out there that are NOT art. Art through photography is not easy at all. I have been studying and practicing it for three years now and I still haven't put out something I find worthy of being called 'art'. As for the argument that a camera is not a living thing and it is creating the photograph, that is not true. The photographer is creating the photograph. The camera records the image, but the photographer is the one capturing the emotion or beauty of the moment. Photography is art, that is a fact. Though beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some people don't like that medium. Just because you don't like it as much as, say, a painting, doesn't automatically make it not an art form.
Photography is most definitely art! There is so many things you can do to photography. You can change the tints and colors. You can paint over photos, and develop them. In art class at school I took a class on just photography and I learned so much from that! Photos on a wall are considered art and I think that it is just totally wrong to say that photography is not art!
It doesn't matter if you photograph it or paint it. If it contains emotion, it's art. Art is expression, and photography is fully capable of being a medium of expression. Art is beauty, and photography is fully capable of being beautiful. There is no denying the fact that photography is art, regardless of one's definition.
As someone who is fond of photography, I definitely believe it to be art! There is something to be said for choosing one's subject matter carefully as well as making sure to get a perfect shot. Anyone can just hold a camera and snap a picture, but you won't get a truly great photograph that way. Or maybe sometimes you will-- but that's part of the fun, human, subjective nature of art!
What's that I saw on your linked in profile under interests? Photography. Ah I see, I think I'll add that one. Wait, I need proof. Let me just get my phone out and take black and white pictures of the flowers and vase in my lounge. And I think I'll take one at 45 degrees and change to sepia.
I say this not to trivialise the debate, but to provide a narrative as to what photography has become. Of course the motion can't be discussed by questioning what art is. Indeed a difficult question. One which philosophers have pondered over for ages. Would you class my example above as art. Yes, and you degrade the medium lower than already is (i’ll explain this later). No, and you start an equally difficult argument as to what must ‘go in to’ a photograph to become art. Other posters have spouted that arguably every drawing or photograph is art. Thus, it follows that ‘I want a fast car so I can drive very very far’ can be poetry. Is poetry art? If so then what is the form? The writing of the poem? Its oration? I don’t think an answer to this question can derived from stating what art is or isn’t, so my argument is going to go down the route that others above have discussed; process.
I follow art and art history, and you could make similar comparisons. Many argue that Mark Rothko’s work can be dismissed as colours layered onto a large canvas, as though you were painting your living room wall. But here’s where I make the distinction, and it’s a big one. With ‘art’ such as painting, sculpture, dancing music etc, the artist has physically created the piece. Let me take painting as an example to focus the debate. When I paint, it is MY hand which is capturing the photo. It is my hand which is creating the indelible mark and capturing emotion, light perspective, etc. With the camera its a lens, computer or printer. Yes, you can augment it with photoshop and other software. Granted this requires technical input, but the bottom line is that the physical creation was not done by you. Comparison’s have been made to authors using type writers vs the pen. This analogy can be thrown out as the presentation of an authors work bears no resemblance on the meaning of the work. The Old Man and the Sea would still be an incredible exploration of a man’s moral fibre, the ethical exploration of fishing etc etc regardless of whether Hemingway had hand written it or typed. It is still his story which he had thought up. The creativity that has gone into it is not diminished by typing it. The difference between a painting of someone and a picture of them is profound. In terms of effort, technical execution and creative input
Art is anything you create. It doesn't matter if you made something out of nothing, or something out of something. If you made something out of nothing, congradulations you made art. If you made something out of something, congratulations, you added on to the art and created more art to it. Art, I believe is enhancing someone else's perspective on things. A simple photograph of a chair in a dark corner might not mean anything to you, but to someone else, they can relate to it. If you add on color, make it black and white, change the tints, you make it more appealing. Example, there is a black and white photo of an apple sitting on a table outside on a fall day. With it being black and white, maybe you can't really tell if it is fall outside, and maybe the apple looks like a pear. Edit it, leave the grass and sky black and white, and make the apple a deep red, and the leaves golden and brown. You just made it instantly more beautiful and people gain more understanding of what the picture is. Anything is art. If taking a picture is not art because its from a machine, then music is not an art because of the machines they use to enhance the sound. Open your minds
The definition of art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Photography shows beauty therefore it is art. I rest my argument with how many times do you see a photograph of something and say oh my god that is so pretty or I wish I was there enjoying that beauty. And to those who say it takes no skill to take a photograph YOUR WRONG you have to know what type of lighting you have to have and at what angle you have to be at in order to take a good picture. Yes there are cameras out there that you can just point and shoot but is really going to look right?
When a person takes a photo they are displaying the image exactly the way they want it to be seen. They express their own emotions on the canvas and they send a message to the viewer making him feel the same. And not everyone can make such a photo that's why it requires skills and that's why it can be considered as art.
It is impossible to answer the question posed until agreement is reached as to a definition as to what art is. Unlikely to happen.
That is a difficult question to answer and everybody will have their own definition. Everybody who can hold a pencil or brush can create an image. Is every image art?
Is it not art just because it is a representation of something that already exists? How many paintings are of something that does not exist? Arguably every image, whether a drawing painting or photograph is "art". But some images will be more compelling than others. Is all we mean by art that it is something liked by the majority? Even within the world of painting arguments rage as to what is considered art.
This will run and run…….
Well photography is nothing more than a person standing there and taking a picture. Anyone can do it. Is a snapshot of my dog a piece of art?
A piece of art is something that somehow sums up history and thought somehow, a painting for example needs so much thought and will ALWAYS have some sort of message and meaning behind it, its almost like a poem and the fact that art is so unique might be due to the fact that unlike photography, art usually requires time, and not just a click.
Photography is not art, it is a picture of art. Art is in the creation. Most photographers capture whatever is already there - very view design the content of their photos. Taking a picture of a beautiful field is just a picture - the art is the field. Photographers capture art, they are not artists.
I consider photography a knowledge, you are taught to use a machine to reproduce something already existing. I admit you need to have an artistic eye to capture the object but the camera is what makes the object come to life in a painting it is the the artist... The camera has come to substitute paintings..
It's artificial construction of something else. Pictures can look amazing and beautiful at times, but you're taking a picture of something that is already there. Just because you're taking a picture of the art, does not mean you're an artist. Yes, taking a picture at a nice angle or something may be creative, but it's more artistic if you can paint that shot instead of simply taking a picture.
Photography is not art, because photos can be copied. Artist's can't paint their original painting twice, but photos can be reproduced thousands of times. A camera is a machine, a painting is created only by humans. A photo records only what is there, but an artist creates a painting by design by removing as well as adding things.
Drawing, painting, sculpting, writing a story, writing music, baking a cake...Etc are all art because you're creating something from nothing! Photography is something from something; a picture of a person, landscape, bridge, building, sunset...Etc. They were already there. You just happened to put a frame/border around it. Photography is skill first, talent second (one is taught about shutter speed or ISO...Etc then they take 17 pictures and hope one is good). Art is talent first, skill second (nobody teaches you how to draw. Its a gift that's enhanced with practice).
I would say mostly not. Perhaps if someone has worked on setting up a scene, putting together props and characters, and arranging them in a unique way that maybe conveys a message and takes a picture, maybe.
I can really appreciate photographers that travel to all corners of the world and take unique pictures of a culture that is completely alien to me. But to me that is still just photography.
Taking a picture of scenery or a building is not art.
It's the same sort of arrogance that comes with rating yourself in terms of the technical specs of your computer (so common in certain PC gaming circles); there is certainly a series of skills both learned and improved upon, but there's a big difference between putting paint on a canvas and Xeroxing (digitally or with film) a chunk of reality you're looking at. The painting and drawing process, even if you're working with subject matter that is firmly grounded in reality (as opposed to high fantasy or science-fiction), is going to be 'coloured' by the tastes, visual skills and often dumb luck (fate?) that a given visual artist will intentionally or unintentionally involve in the progression and completion of a drawing. You can draw a picture with a cheap pencil and sheet paper and if you know what you're doing still be able to crank out something impressive; it's something entirely different to claim your skill in positioning and lighting and owning a good camera (DSLR or otherwise) that set you back several thousand dollars, let alone whatever costs are involved in getting where you need to be to attempt a given individual picture. Lastly, there's the 'needs to be perfect' syndrome in photography. Granted, you can do this because even if you're still working with a traditional roll o' film camera, you've in theory got the entire roll to snap off if you're willing to (and probably several thousand attempts in the case of a DSLR or other digital camera if you've got a decent-sized SD Card) without straining yourself if you're not immediately sure about one specific 'take'. In graphite & paper or acrylic on canvas, there is rarely a need to 'be perfect' (with the possible exception of technical drawing or architectural plans, and it's more about 'accuracy' than 'perfection'); there is no internal requirement that defines a picture other than what the hand creates with its stylus or brush.
I don't dismiss photography as being a creative pursuit or something that does not require skill to do well (as is appropriate in any pursuit, at least to practice it and hone those skills) but I have trouble thinking of it as being 'art'.
The definition of art is: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Given photography is expression through something visible, but the person shooting to image isn't creatively or imaginatively producing it. It doesn't have effort in it, rather just timing. The people who designed and assembled the camera you photograph with are more of an artist than the photographer them self. The camera producers have the creativity to come up with the idea of the camera, then to assemble it so that you can take pictures with it when the camera is doing all the work. Therefore photography is not art.
Tho some say that art is doing things passionately... I think that's just a shallow meaning of it... Art is done by applying a medium to the subject which is the "art"... So, in the case of photography... Its is only the medium of capturing the art which is your subject... So for me, photography is just a material or a way of showing art.