Amazon.com Widgets
  • Photography is Art!!

    When photographers take photos it because they find the beauty in it. Art is just creating something that others can enjoy as much as you do. Art is about capturing emotions and feelings and displaying everything you want the audience to see, no matter the way. You have to choose the correct lighting, colors, and objects to be displayed.

  • What is art?

    It's difficult to define art...It seems to have no rules; at this point in time, anything goes, including Campbell's soup cans. My own definition of art is this: if it makes your viewer feel the same emotions you felt when you created it, then it's art. The finest photographs in the world can never be duplicated. What do you feel when you look at 'Migrant Mother' or 'The Afghan Girl'? Can they ever be duplicated? Are they art? Most pianists don't compose...They just play the notes that someone else wrote down. Most painters don't create...They paint what they see in the style of someone else. If you define 'art' as something that has never been tried before by anyone else, then there is very little art in the world.

  • Yes photography is art!

    Art can not be put into one category. Art can be many things not just paint on a canvas. Art is a way for people to express themselves either visual or performing arts. Even though it is taken by a camera doesn't mean that work wasn't put into it. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have a meaning or story behind it. Photography is most definitely art there is not denying it!

  • You can't arbitrarily re-define terms

    In a debate, you cannot arbitrarily redefine common terms. In this case, if photography meets the criteria for "art", as it is generally understood, then YES wins this debate. Further, it is not necessary for photography to ALWAYS be art, to satisfy the question, one must show that photography CAN be art.

    Definition of "art": 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.

    The creation of a photograph, at a minimum, requires some skill to be able to operate a camera and at most requires a keen understanding of controlling light, of composition concepts and visualization of how the subject(s) are placed within the frame. In some cases, the subject is arranged, created, lit, directed or otherwise positioned by the maker to create a pleasing image.

    Photography is a visual form.

    To present a photograph in a visual form, one must not only take the image but process and produce it in some way that allows it to be seen. This, too, requires at least a minimum skill and ability, and at most requires the ability to visualize an end result and process an image to achieve it.

    Finally, while not all photographs are meant to be aesthetically pleasing or crate an emotional impact, many are.

    Likewise, one can paint a wall white for functional reasons without any aesthetic purpose - and this does not mean that painting as a medium is not art.

    In cases where an image accidentally has aesthetic value, one can say that the act of taking the photograph itself was not the act of creating art - however, taking the captured image and translating it to a form that can be appreciated certainly meets all criteria.

    Given the above, it is clear that photography can meet all established criteria for art - and only a logical fallacy or re-defining of "art" can argue otherwise.

  • Yes it is

    Photography can be art to. Photos can express emotion just as well as art. Some photographers take better photos than some artists. It takes time to make a perfect photograph. Many photographers get millions because people love their photos. Photos can be icons, symbols, or just something to be fancied and enjoyed. Their just the more realistic looking version of paintings.

  • Photography is evocative

    Photography is a form of art because it evokes emotion from the viewer. I believe art to be something that expresses something whether that be an emotion, a thought, a perspective or an experience.
    Photography can help people see through others eyes or interpret something in a whole new light. If thats not a form of art, then what is?

  • Yes Art g

    I think photography is art becuase of its formal properties and some picture could be very interesting like to these days pictures are part of art when the motion freezes it could be painted even more realistic today so I say that photography is an art and i will support on the photography is art side

  • The real question is can photography be used to create art.

    And of course it can. Just like drawing, videography, audio recording, filmography, even carpentry. All of those, like photography, are mediums or crafts that can be used to create art. But it's not to say any photograph is art just like every film or video recording isn't art, any drawing isn't art (if it's just a drawing to depict something as it is for instance), etc. Art isn't the medium used to create it, it's the result.

  • It can be. Photography is simply another medium that can be used to create a work of art.

    The definition of art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. It's the creative process and the result that determines whether anything one creates is art or not. If you have a tape recorder and record someone singing, of course that's not art. However if there is a creative process involved in creating the lyrics, musical arrangement, etc. of the music, and the result meets the definition of art, then that recording can become an artistic work. By the same token if all you are doing is taking a photograph of a subject without any creativity involved in that process, with the result mainly just being a replication of a subject, then the resulting photograph really isn't art. If the question is whether photography is art or not, the answer is that it can be. Photography is simply another medium or process that can be used to create a work of art.

  • Walter Benjamin/Ted Cohen

    Walter Benjamin feels that because photography is produced by a mechanical device and has no pure original, it is not an art form. However, as Cohen might agree with his counter-argument against Benjamin, it is impossible to conclude that photography is not an art. With out the painter, a paintbrush could not paint. With out an instrument, the clarinet player could not play.
    Much the same, a photographer relies on their instrument of choice. It is illogical to say they are not, in some form, artists.

  • Art can only be made by living beings, not by non-breathing devices.

    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.

  • You are not your camera!

    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'.

  • Nothing is being created in photography.

    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.

  • Art is creating something from nothing!

    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).

  • Artistic features but not true Art

    If I were a painter, I could wake up in the morning and paint my vision or any vision I have. As a photographer, I have to have the actual event as a basis. Of course, I could photoshop it and change it. As a painter (artist) I can doing anything.
    There are photographers who recreate masterpieces using models, cameras, lights, props, etc. When everything is setup a 6 year old could walk up and press the button. But an painter (artist) could never hand a brush to anyone and have them recreate the scene. A photograph can look artistic because you have the compositional skills but the talent is in the painter who can create from nothing.

  • Not An Art

    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.

  • Do not consider Photography an Art.

    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..

  • Lazy Art Really

    Not an art, no more than copy + pasting an article and using a different font makes you a writer. When you lump photography into the broader 'art', or as some above have said, "Any form of emotional expression" (that is to include temper tantrums and violence, I suppose then) you don't justify photography; you only degrade art. The essence the photographer captures is already in existence.

    If you say photography is an art, because "One can't define art" by its own virtue it becomes a meaningless term to call something art. Art, in and of itself, has no value in that case. Painting, music, poetry, dance...These still have value...But art no longer would, because it doesn't require adequate talent, discipline, or time to learn how to perform competent art.

  • no its not

    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.

  • Lazy Art Really

    Not an art, no more than copy + pasting an article and using a different font makes you a writer. When you lump photography into the broader 'art', or as some above have said, "Any form of emotional expression" (that is to include temper tantrums and violence, I suppose then) you don't justify photography; you only degrade art. The essence the photographer captures is already in existence.

    If you say photography is an art, because "One can't define art" by its own virtue it becomes a meaningless term to call something art. Art, in and of itself, has no value in that case. Painting, music, poetry, dance...These still have value...But art no longer would, because it doesn't require adequate talent, discipline, or time to learn how to perform competent art.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-06-15T17:45:02.807
Art is valued more than gold. Art cannot be duplicated plus it's a view into a person's soul.
Anonymous says2013-09-21T17:07:46.287
Gregory Crewdson, designs every inch of his frame, total intentionality.
Dan Winters Builds sets and designs esthetics to make a character from a face.
Jeff Wall, Sees a moment he thinks is beautiful, takes notes, goes back with models recreates that moment over so he can capture it how he wants.

I only read the NO sections, but I debated competitively in school, and essentially it would seem no one here really knows photography well, only the theory of what a camera does normally. I would like to think that all people can understand that the tool, however powerful is still only a tool, in the hands of a person. If that person hones their skill, if they wish to create something that is art then all they need to do is work hard enough. Art is expression but it is also VERY hard work. Camera, paintbrush, or upside down urinal, if you sweat, cry and bleed for your work then no one can tell you it is not art.
boredashellsoimadethisacc says2014-03-24T23:31:13.723
I recently bought a children's coloring book and colored it. I expressed myself with the colors i used, would that be considered art?
fairylens says2014-07-21T00:09:49.213
Photography is an art, it is expression of emotional power of human nature which reveals hidden stories, shows the truth..