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
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?
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.
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
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!
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
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…….
Photography doesn't create anything, it merely captures something that is already there. No creation : no art. Another argument I often use against photography : out of 50 pictures, 2 are going to turn out good, and even pros have like 50 tries before finally getting the right pic. Photography is more about being at the right spot in the right time than artistic creation.
Another good argument : spend a day taking photos and even if you have no skill or experience, one or two pics will turn out looking decent; good luck trying to make a decent drawing after a day if you have no skill or experience with a pencil (or a guitar, a marker, a brush etc...).
And it's been already said a thousand times, but here it goes again : turning two dials and pressing a button doesn't come near actually learning to paint, draw, master a medium etc...
If it does't require a special skill, something that one was given by nature or was aquired through hard training and that can't easily be reproduced by somebody else, when an pre-defined algorithm decides how light will be interpreted and made visible in in a automated reproduction... That is not art.
It may be pretty or it may depict somethin rare, but it is nothing special in terms of creation. A piece of art begins inside the head, already having a personal origin, meaning and a purpose, and not after it was created and been giving meaning to it aftwerwards. That's just talk and self-elevation, superficial crap.
If photography is art then so is recording sounds. Photography is documenting moments in time. If I took a tape recorder to the woods and recorded birds chirping and wind in the trees would you call that art? How about the sound of falling rain? Maybe the sounds of the city? None of that shit is art and neither is snapping some pictures. THe one exception might be an artist staging an image purposefully with artful mastery to take a specific photo of a vision he has come up with completely on his own.
Photography is more a technical science than an art. Anyone can point and click a camera and even a novice will occasionally be able to capture a spectacular sunset or mirror-lake image. I agree there's an element of skill in composing the shot, deciding on the depth of field (blurred/sharp background), lighting, etc. But just because you require an element of skill to master something essentially technical doesn't make it art.
Ever been to The Lourve? Probably not... That is, if you think photography is art. Take a trip to the epicenter of our planets artistic heritage and you'll be hit with a serious reality check as to what real art is. Sorry people, that new pic you uploaded to your FB or IG? ITS NOT ART!!!!
I agree with what has already been said. Art is creating something from nothing. Photography is merely capturing on an SD card what is already there. I suppose you could work a picture in Photo shop and create something entirely new. That might be art. Really creative photographers may be artists at heart, but the genre is not art. It can be "artistic" but that does not make the whole discipline art.
Simply put: a 4 yr old can take, on accident or on purpose, on first attempt, the exact same photograph as Peter Lik, Stephen McCurry, or Robert Mapplethorpe. Or anyone could, for that matter. A 4yr old cannot, however, sit down and play Moonlight Sonata on first attempt. That would require, skill, interpretation, and practice.
My classic definition of art is, the creation or formation of images, objects, or structures by means of the manipulative or dexterous USE OF THE HANDS with tools, using almost any kind of media, such as paint on canvas, clay, stone, wood, etc. The quality of the image or the work does not matter. What matters it how the work was produced. A drawing of a stick man is still art; there's good art, and there is poor art. Good art requires talent; poor art doesn't.
A photographer does not use his hands to produce an image of a tree. He does not coordinate the dexterity of his hands with his perceptive ability, his knowledge of blending colors, and his knowledge of how to use light and dark to produce the desired effects to create the images of a tree that actually looks like a tree. The camera (a mechanical, technological device that can hardly be consider a tool of art when compared to a brush or pencil) did all of that for him. All he did was focus the camera (which has preset modes for different lighting conditions and effects) and pressed a button. He is not an artist. I am an accomplished classical artist (painting and drawing) who am also a photographer, and I learned photography quite easily. Yet I was never taught a lesson in art, ever! It has been all natural talent that has been present since I was a small child and developed as I grew into an adult. There are many people who have taken many art classes and may only be able to produce mediocre work at best, but who are most likely able to become good photographers by reading a couple books. Photography is not art!
My classic definition of art is, the creation or formation of images, objects, or structures by means of the manipulative or dexterous USE OF THE HANDS with tools, using almost any kind of media, such as paint on canvas, clay, stone, etc. The quality of the image or the work does not matter. What matters it how the work was produced. A drawing of a stick man is still art; there's good art, and there is poor art. Good art requires talent; poor art doesn't.
A photographer does not use his hands to produce an images of a tree. He does not coordinate the dexterity of his hands with his perceptive ability, his knowledge of blending colors, and his knowledge of how to use light and dark to produce the desired effects to create the images of a tree that actually looks like a tree. The camera (a mechanical, technological device) did all of that for him. All he did was focus the camera and pressed a button. He is not an artist. I am an accomplished classical artist (painting and drawing) who am also a photographer, and I learned photography quite easily. Yet I was never taught a lesson in art, ever! It has been all natural talent since I was a small child. There are many people who have taken many art classes and may only be able to produce mediocre work at best, but who are most likely able to become good photographers by reading a couple books. Photography is not art!
It is true, that the actual meaning of "art" may mean something different to everyone. To me, Art is the careful mixture of skill, natural talent and the ability to pour out one's imagination into the world by creating something from nothing. To some eccentrics, art can be anything. They point to a tree and say "it's art." Or they might ask "how can you even define Art?" Art, by collective modern human interpretation, has a definition: "the expression or application of Human creative skill or imagination." Humans create art. Each artist has their own unique traits they can call their own. For example, A saxophone player may have that special, one of a kind sound listeners distinguish him/her by. In my opinion, photography is just a helpful tool used for capturing moments and surroundings. Labeling it as "art" discredits the very meaning of the word. It requires skill to become a great photographer, sure. It also requires great skill to become a successful carpenter. People aren't born with an artistic talent for Photography. Photographers are born with the ability to learn new skills and apply them to their lives like any other trade. Im not saying people who enjoy photography dont have any artistic abilities. Maybe some are dancers, or writers, painters or poets. Something they create from nothing but raw talent and natural born skill. Photography is amazing. It helps us pear into the past through someone else's eyes. It ables us to witness cultures from across the globe or stars billions of light years away. Many photos are aesthetically pleasing to the eye but not one has convinced me that it could be art. The "art" of photography is in capturing. The "art" of Art, is in Creation.