Is all photography art?

[dnmilikan]

One of the questions that I have wrestled with over the almost thirty years that I have spent photographing is what part of photography is artistic expression. Like many others, I have sought to emulate other noteworthy photographers at the beginning of my efforts. At one time or another I have photographed with everything from 35 mm to ultra large format equipment that produced single negatives 12 inches by 20 inches. Currently I photograph predominantly with a 5 inch X 7 inch (negative size) view camera or digital. I have produced many large fine photographs during this time. But when one asks if these are artistic, I would acknowledge that a lesser number are truly artisitic.

The reason that I say this is that I have come to the conclusion that artistic expression is individual and that it is not related to equipment that one uses. Being an individual effort or expression is part of the definition for me...beyond that it must resonate with certain viewers at an unspoken level...It must speak to the universality of the human experience. I acknowledge that this has been my experience and my determination. I would like to hear from others your thoughts on this matter.

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Well, for what it's worth, my first response to your question "is all photography art"
is no. Especially in a technical field (like where I work), there is a lot of photography
used strictly for documentation purposes - showing a failure of some component or
placement of some component somewhere and they are not interested in the
artistic component simply to show the component, it's placement/serial number
etc. Then there is the part of photography used for the manufacture of IC's etc
where it is a photographic mask used to control the etching (or circuit boards
for that matter). Granted what you see here and on most photographic forums
are "art" for someone, but there really is a large section that really has no
artistic component. Even on the artistic side, what "floats my boat" (for whatever
reason - remembering the trip/person etc or simply for the image itself) may
have no value/interest to someone else which is more along the lines of
what you were saying I think.

mikey

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

You do realize that art can't be objectively defined, don't you? The word itself is a tad wobbly in the definition department, and that's because it isn't fact; it's perception. I can only define art for myself, which is something that communicates with me, that inevitably makes me focus on it to the point where the day-to-day world disappears for a short while. Rembrandt, T.S.Eliot, Moussorgsky, and lobster have always done that for me. Add cat fur so all the senses are covered. In photography, it's those who showed up around the turn of the 20th Century--Stieglitz, Kasebier, et al. Art is ultimately a personal experience, and all the things I listed above are art for me but may not be for you.

Everyone from the ancient Greeks to the know-it-alls of today have tried to formulate art or to tell others what they ought to or ought not to like. I say hogwash. I know what I like.

Barbara

[XaiLo]

By nature photography is a reproduction. And in general all visualizations are not interesting, compelling, or beautiful to everyone. Once upon a time, when I use to write poetry it wasn't for the sake of writing poetry, it was just simply expressing how I felt... sometimes the end result expressed love, confusion, doubt, and or a myriad of other sentiments. Some have regarded my poems as beautiful does that make them art. Or is it their form, composition or communication that makes them art.

What I enjoy most in photography is taking candid shots of people, especially faces, there are some many stories there. I learned something one day when someone I knew asked me what camera I used. turns out he bought a better version of my camera and he said to me "but my pictures are not like yours" whoever said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" was right in more ways than one. I realized at that point we saw differently through the viewfinder.

It never occured to me that I was actually learnig how to express myself by capturing images. Maybe there is still one story to be told. It's a process for sure... is it all art? sometimes there are just uncompleted stories.

[JC Profile Private message]

Are all experiments science?

Are all kisses love?

Are all apologies sincere?

Is all photography art?

Answer one….answer all.

[Tarafrost Profile Private messageWebsite]

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The form that the art takes and the tools that are used to create it are not really relevant, recognizing that the artist does need to have mastery of the craftsmanship, and thus tools of the trade, to be able to produce something that is worthy of admiration. If you don't have that mastery, then I would categorize a nice piece as a "happy accident" rather than "art". The intention and purpose of the artist, IMO, is a vital piece of what makes art, art, though it's only a necessary, not a sufficient condition for that classification.

I photograph to please myself, and am my most stringent critic as to what I think is "artistic". If others like my work, then that is a bonus (and a thrill).

Personally, the question "is all photography art" just doesn't seem important to me. The answer is too obvious.....Aunt Martha's family shapshots, with heads and feet cut off are quite clearly not "art", therefore all photography is not art. QED.

YMMV.

[Herriot2 Profile Private messageWebsiteYIM]

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, anyone who thinks that the winners of the various years' Turner Prize in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Prize) is artshould go for an eye test!

There is no way on this earth will I be convinced that the winner of the 2001, or indeed of any turner prize winner contest is an artist...

2001
Controversy (including an egg-throwing protester) was caused by the eventual winner, Martin Creed's work, which was an empty room with the lights going on and off, but this was upstaged at the ceremony, when Madonna gave him the prize and said, "At a time when political correctness is valued over honesty I would also like to say right on motherf*&^%$'!" This was on live TV before the 9 p.m. "watershed", and an attempt to "bleep" it out was too late. Channel 4 were subsequently given an official rebuke by the Independent Television Commission.

Note that I removed some letters from that report to save yer blushes

or in 1999...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emin-My-Bed.jpg

Another winner was some so called waffler artist who got a dead cow, sliced it in half, pickled it then put it ina tank filled with some clear liquid.

Amazing or what?

There was even a so called artist who wanted to exhibit a tap (fawcett) left turned on so the water would run down into a drain!!!! RFortunatley even the so called experts who administer the turner prize told him no because of the waste.

Sorry folks but in my opinion there are limits to even the theory of art being in the eye of the beholder or it being subjective. Things like the turner prize give art a bad name.

As for Photography then I agree with Mikey. There are two levels, for this purpose, of photgraphy. I had an accident in my car wasn't my fault) many months ago. I took photos of the damage. I don't consider that art, that's more practical. Though, maybe I could enter it as a turner prize exhibit

lol

Herriot

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Herriot, you fell into the puddle of the avant garde.

Barbara

[Herriot2 Profile Private messageWebsiteYIM]

Herriot, you fell into the puddle of the avant garde.

Barbara

Very true - I am still soaking.



Peter

[f65+]

Here's my take on the subject: To answer this question truthfully, one must answer the question, can any photograph be art? This has been the argument between photography clubs and art guilds for decades and probably will not be solved for many more decades. Many painters and sculptors will say photography cannot be art because the photograph is created by a machine. Others say that anything created is art. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Personally, I view the camera, film and print as art tools no different than the canvas, brush and paint or chisel, hammer and stone. It is the artist's expertise that manipulates these tools and materials to produce the art piece. In that respect, photography can be art. If the photograph meets all the artistic criteria as does a painting, then yes, it can be art. But are all paintings art? Not likely. Not all paintings meet good artistic criteria any more than not all photographs meet good artistic criteria. So is all photography art? NO. No more so than all paintings are art; no more so than all sculptures are art.

[nannybear Profile Private messageWebsite]

I maybe out in left field but in the original post you were talking about what you have wrestled with for 30 years. I believe that art is subjective, but certainly ( talking photography only as outside that is a bigger discussion) if I take the picture for my passion and pleasure it is art whether anyone else likes it or not. If I am hired to do a "job" and given an itinerary of what to take - perhaps some of it might be art - but more often than not I am just recording what the client wants whether I like it or not. Photography can be art as can cooking, building, sculpture etc. I would never want to be so snobby as to define what is art to all an sundry.....it is just not my place....only to define what I consider art for myself...... cheers Jan

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Before anyone can say what is art and what isn't, they have to define the term itself. Otherwise, there are no criteria. I'm not about to try to define art for anyone but myself, and so what is art for me isn't necessarily art for another. There are certain photographers from the beginning of the last century who stop me in my tracks every single time. Early Stieglitz and Steichen, and all of Kasebier bring me to a screeching halt. I have a beautiful autographed book of Ansel Adams' work, but the only reason I keep it is because of that autograph. I don't like his pictures. They leave me cold.

But what does any of it really matter? I'm not about to stop loving Kasebier because someone else says, "All she did was open the shutter at the right moment, and photographs aren't art," and I'm not about to stop hating Adams because someone says, "Adams is the pinnacle of photographic art."

I believe that art is a way of seeing. Some people happen to see better than others.

Barbara

[mickiswit]

Of course all photography is art!!! It is a documented flash of time...to be viewed by someone.
Whose to say that a picture of a circuit board and serial number taken for industrial purposes today won't be put in an art gallery two hundred years from now as an artistic display of 21st century technologies...
In the future maybe someone will take those photographs of your aunt's...put them together and display them as
" Amateur Photography of the 1960's - The Inexperienced Eye in Mid-Century America "..
Just because something isn't art "to you" or "for now" doesn't mean it won't be for someone else and at some other time!!!

Micki

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Well, Micki, your point is certainly well taken, but I refuse to believe that a crummy, badly composed picture of a circuit board can or ever will be considered art any more than the photo of my foot, which happened when the camera slipped.

Barbara

[just4fun Profile Private message]

My education is fine art and photography was required. Just like I think that anything that is put together as a creative endeaver is art per se, I would also say that purpose plays a larger role. I can put together a dress and it is creative but I don't see it as art but if a use fabric to purposely create (I remember prof saying nothing new is ever created, you are just recreating it, therefore a million trees) something abstract to realistic, I see that as art. So for me, not all photos would be art. For me to think of myself as an artist, I have to be trying to create something to evoke an emotional component. If I take a picture and it touches you somehow, I would qualify it as having an artistic component. If I take a picture and am purposely trying to evoke an emotion and succeed then I definitely see that as art success. This is definitely where I fail as a photographer.
We had an outside critique in college and we had to choose one drawing and one painting for him to critique. He chose my charcoal as the best in the morning. In the afternoon he said that my painting was the worst one he had ever seen in his entire life. Our names were not on them. He just continued to rant and rave. He would go on to another one and then come back and point out something else that he hated. I loved it and laughed through the whole ordeal. I think a lot of students and the profs thought it was coverup laugthter and were really defending it. I was in my 40's so I had endured a lot worse things in my life. But what I loved about the whole thing is that the fact that he so violently hated it was the most dramatic emotional impact that anything I had done had created and that for me was a success. Since then, I usually use it as my avatar, so I will put it up. Most men hate it. It is a self portrait done as a series of 7 we had to do that quarter. I call it PMS. Most women get it.