Do We Prevent Photography from 'Being Art'

[photomc]

So...Do We?

It is great to have a site such as this one, LF and other forums to discuss the nuts and bolts of photography. We can all go on and on about why this format is so good, that process gives the right tool for our 'vision' or why we consider what we do is art. But we really do not seem to ever really discuss the emotion of our work.

It seems much more difficult to discuss the reason we feel compelled to create the work that we want to share with others. In it's simplest form, we want to record a event - recent birth of a child, wedding, or other special event in our life, and these are very valid reasons to photograph. Many of us go through our daily life, and 'see' something special that demands that we stop and and preserve it for the future, to save a part of the moment for someone else to enjoy with us.

We go to workshops, we enjoy outings with other photographers, we want others to teach us how to 'see' photographically - they must have the key because of the emotion we feel when we look at their art, and we have this feeling inside our own being that we must release, and yet we do not know how. So we reduce it to discussion of film, lens, format, process, etc. I do not know if other artist, from painters, sculptures, or even designers spend as much time as we do 'talking shop' or if it a photography thing.

Would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others - this level of navel gazing does not happen that often, and perhaps that is a good thing, but it was on my mind so thought I would share. What can we do to help push photography beyond the act of tripping a shutter, loading film, etc and becoming a reflection of our inner voice.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Yes and No.

We apply our own limits, but we should never allow labels by others to create limits for us.

The secret is to be yourself, not be a follower.

Eugene Etget was hired by the city of Paris to photograph the urban landscape. No one told him to make art, but he did. It took visionaries to prevent Etget's work from being overlooked as simply 'record' images of the Paris streets. They said "What, take a look at what he achieved."

All artist talk shop with their peers. The secret is making a navel gaze into something. Grin.

 

[copake_ham]

Why would anyone ask this question?

I don't think the validity of photography as an art form has been seriously questioned since the mid-20th Century.

 

[DarkroomExperimente]

photography isn't just art, it's also science and engineering too....being able to bounce between the aesthetic and technical sides of photography is what makes it so appealing to me

for me, getting absorbed by the gadgetry doesn't get in the way of making art -- I'm just playing with a different part of my brain

when creative inspiration strikes, it tends to leap into action & ignore all the technical details anyway...many of my most artistic shots were taken with simple cameras with my brain turned OFF

 

[David Brown]

It seems much more difficult to discuss the reason we feel compelled to create the work that we want to share with others. ...

Many of us go through our daily life, and 'see' something special that demands that we stop and and preserve it for the future, to save a part of the moment for someone else to enjoy with us.

What can we do to help push photography beyond the act of tripping a shutter, loading film, etc and becoming a reflection of our inner voice.

Mike:

I think you have your own answer in the 2nd statement I quoted above. Seeing something that you want to capture because you wish someone else to see it too, "IS" a reflection of your inner voice. You don't do that because of technique.

Some of us simply want to make pictures and have found out that we can do it with cameras and darkrooms. Other people paint, carve wood, write, sing, etc. I do think that photographers are much too hard on themselves about this "Is it art?" thing. There are people who make music, who paint, who write, whose primary motivation is not to be "artists". They do it for their own pleasure, or to share with others, but not just to be "ART"! If they happen to make art in the process, so much the better.

Make your pictures Mike. They're good photographs, I've seen them. Shoot what you want to shoot and share them with whoever you want to see them. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Mike. I love the thought that you have broached here. I want to see you expand on this in an article. I would really enjoy that.

 

[jovo]

I do not know if other artist, from painters, sculptures, or even designers spend as much time as we do 'talking shop' or if it a photography thing.

Artists, i.e. painters, spend an enormous amount of time talking shop. Without technique, there's just nothing there, whereas anyone can operate a camera...hence the age old uncertainty about photography being an 'art'. But, painters rarely discuss why they choose to put the edges around any particular area of their chosen subject any more than photographers do. That! is where style, vision, design sense and the utterly ineffable uniqueness of each 'artist' lies. It's beyond discussion because it's visual not verbal. What painters and photographers can discuss is their reasons why what's there works or doesn't work in the eye of the critiquer....and from there the whole gamut of observations about the whether, in each case, the 'rules' need to be better observed, or abandoned.

There are wonderful books to educate the artist in the verities of long held principles of design and the construction of a successful picture. More photographers should avail themselves of such works. But in the end, it's exactly that the artist/photographer should "see' something special that demands that we stop and and preserve it for the future, to save a part of the moment for someone else to enjoy with us." that matters most.

 

[Mateo]

In others types of art people talk shop...I do. Photography just has allot of shop to talk.

If we could sum up all them things that make us trip the shutter and shutter ourselves into dark caves to trip on what's coming out then we would all write decent artist statements and state what art is to us, in the third person of course. Imagine Og and his other brother Mog in that cave in France before there was a France arguing the merit of one berry/clay mixture over another. It's all cool talking shop. But then imagine Og is stoked cause his drawing makes him remember the beauty of the beasts but Mog finds it just so pretentious that Og should have to brag about bagging two of them.

Misunderstanding is a part of art that I think should be used to our advantage and so any real discussion of our intention in making anything could only take away from what it does for others. I cringe when I read about someone being fascinated or exploring such and such...I like the big voodoo mystery.

Can you imagine the artist statement for that Lascaux show when it opened?

 

[photomc]

Mateo, I love it....you must have been reading my thoughts as I wrote this. FACT - while considering the topic, I was actually considering the 'rock' art from many years ago and wondering if those guys gave any thought at all to what they were doing. And what the intent was - to tell others what they had seen, a means of self expression even then, or where they just trying to explain what they had been up to while out with the guys?

Sometimes, I love to hear the story behind a photograph (or any other work of art) - other times I could care less and just want to look at the work and enjoy it.

John hit upon some very good points (Thank You John) - one thought while I read his reply (maybe it is his avatar) 2 different musicians can play the same piece of music. Both are technically excellent, but one is full of passion - it is from the heart and moves us much more than the other, I find the same in photography and other artistic endeavors as well. Excellence in the mechanics or technical part of the craft will show, however when coupled with that extra something (dare I say soul of the artist - sounds so damn pretentious) the photograph stops being a photograph and becomes - 'art'...just more thoughts.

 

[Chuck_P]

Your question is, in my effort to put your thoughts in a nutshell------are we as photographers our own biggest obstacle to photography being viewed as an art form because we seem driven by or too involved in the process/craft of photography and not as much by the reasons why we are photographing?

No.

The question also, unwittingly, IMO, has an "anti-thought": It may be assumed that a person who creates art with a brush would never ask a group of his fellow painters a similar question.

I think talking shop or talking "craft" is just part of it because what we produce does, unquestionably, involve something different than the pallet of paint, a stretched canvas, and a brush. Those are legitimate tools (and probably much more than that) for the painter as an artist and I say that with the greatest of respect for the person who brings those elements together to create something of beauty. I can't draw or paint anything.

What we do (and not better because of these things, but it's just what we do) involves a light tight box, lenses, film, meters, filters, chemicals, paper, etc, etc, etc.........just as importantly it requires a deep sense of how all these things relate and interact with each other, and it necessitates the skill to function in the craft to know how best to bring them all together to generate that same thing of beauty. There is this effort to take a "literal" thing in front of us, record it quite literally on film but with all the information in the right densities for us to somehow transform it into something quite "not literal" in the photographic print.......that representation is what is in our mind and not what was really in front of the camera. Man! If that aint art, then all we are doing is just taking blankety blank pictures!!

That's what I'm trying to do, not saying I'm successful at it, but it makes me happy .

Good question to contemplate.

Chuck

 

[JBrunner]

I can operate a paint brush, a shovel, and a camera. None of those things make me a painter, or a landscaper, or a photographer. Tools don't make an artist. The ability to express something in a meaningful way, is a big part of what constitutes art. Worrying about if the medium qualifies is pedantic. Thats why the few that say photography can't be art, are wrong in the most boorish sense. Yogurt can be art, but most yogurt doesn't make the grade.

 

[copake_ham]

I can operate a paint brush, a shovel, and a camera. None of those things make me an painter, or a landscaper, or a photographer. Tools don't make an artist. The ability to express something in a meaningful way, is a big part of what constitutes art. Worrying about the if the medium qualifies is pedantic. Thats why the few that say photography can't be art, are wrong in the most boorish sense. Yogurt can be art, but most yogurt doesn't make the grade.

 

[kjsphoto]

Do We Prevent Photography from 'Being Art

Yes, you bet..

What can we do to help push photography beyond the act of tripping a shutter, loading film, etc and becoming a reflection of our inner voice.

Stop creating editions, multiples, etc... and start producing one of a kind originals like other artist such as painters. You asked, there is the answer, but many do not want to hear this as this goes against everything they were brainwashed to believe. Their is no reason we cannot treat this medium like a painting by only creating a single unique work of art. If you want to create editions, fine , make ONE ( 1 ) original and scan it or photograph it like a painters does their paintings and make a reproduction of the original and call the copies your editions, reproduction, whatever, but only ever produce one original.

As long as photographers do editions, multiples, etc... the public will continue to think of the work as pretty pictures, just another click of the shutter image for the wall, etc... Another dime a dozen photograph...

Make them unique and maybe people will start considering a photograph art.

It doesn't matter what we think it is what the public thinks, and most of the public looks at a photo and says, yup I can do that. You just pushed a button. You have to do something that no one else is willing to do to make a change. Make 1, destroy the neg, sell the print. Only one exists and if someone else wants a copy, well then they will either have to contact the person that bought it, just like a painting, or buy a cheap digital reproduction.

 

[rpsawin]

I can operate a paint brush, a shovel, and a camera. None of those things make me a painter, or a landscaper, or a photographer. Tools don't make an artist. The ability to express something in a meaningful way, is a big part of what constitutes art. Worrying about if the medium qualifies is pedantic. Thats why the few that say photography can't be art, are wrong in the most boorish sense. Yogurt can be art, but most yogurt doesn't make the grade.

Love it...

Thanks for putting this so well.

Bob

 

[Shawn Rahman]

We go to workshops, we enjoy outings with other photographers, we want others to teach us how to 'see' photographically - they must have the key because of the emotion we feel when we look at their art, and we have this feeling inside our own being that we must release, and yet we do not know how. So we reduce it to discussion of film, lens, format, process, etc. I do not know if other artist, from painters, sculptures, or even designers spend as much time as we do 'talking shop' or if it a photography thing.

Allow me to take a stab at only the above, as I sincerely do believe that photography is art in every sense of the word.

Having dabbled in sketching and drawing, I can tell you that there are those who go to ecstasies over a certain texture of graphite or charcoal pencil, or certain types of paper. Same for painters using watercolor, acrylics, oils, etc. I think it is just that we have SO MANY different types of cameras, lenses, papers, films, etc. to choose from that we naturally talk about it more.

Also - let's face it: ultimately, we can reduce what we do to looking through the viewfinder (or at the groundglass) and press a button or shutter release. Before I get killed by those who would point out the painstaking labor involved in post-shooting darkroom work, I only mean to say that we can in many instances make our "art" while still leaving the processing to others. And even when we head into the darkroom and do it ourselves, we really aren't creating so much as interpreting when we dodge, burn, etc. Those who practice other visual arts - especially drawing and painting - do not, for the most part, do this. So I think we have a natural propensity to talk about other things, like process, and film, and lenses, and paper, etc.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

My answer to the queston: "Do We Prevent Photography from 'Being Art' ", is no. Art will stand inspite of our efforts.

As said earlier, all the gear and chemistry, technique and science are only tools. The art is in the artist.

 

[bill schwab]

You asked, there is the answer...

I mean no disrespect Kevin, but I don't believe it is. I know you and your friend are on a bit of a crusade with this, but I just don't see the sense. It's like trying to make my dog act like my cat. It seems to me that you simply have acquired a dislike of photography and I can't help but ask why you don't just pick up a brush and paint?

Bill

 

[kjsphoto]

I mean no disrespect Kevin, but I don't believe it is. I know you and your friend are on a bit of a crusade with this, but I just don't see the sense. It's like trying to make my dog act like my cat. It seems to me that you simply have acquired a dislike of photography and I can't help but ask why you don't just pick up a brush and paint?

Bill

No disrespect Bill.

>> It's like trying to make my dog act like my cat.
No, not at all. It is how you want people to perceive your work. You want to be another guy in the sea of multiples, of do you want to be know as someone that only produces originals… Only you can answer that..

>> It seems to me that you simply have acquired a dislike of photography
That is so far from the truth. I love photography I hate digital and I hate what photography is turning into.

>> I can't help but ask why you don't just pick up a brush and paint?
I do paint and I do sell my paintings as well, it is that I also love photography.

The logic is easy, when you ask people what they think of photography they will respond with a picture, not art, but a picture, if you ask them what they think of a painting they will respond with art, not a painting but art.

So what is the main difference between the two besides or the process? In a painting there is only one, whereas photography you can create unlimited numbers from the same neg over and over. So all I am saying is to get people to start thinking of photography differently why not start treating photography like other mediums and maybe people will start to change their opinions on photosphere as being a REAL art form over time from just another pretty picture..

 

[Les McLean]

Yes, you bet..



Stop creating editions, multiples, etc... and start producing one of a kind originals like other artist such as painters. .

Just because it is one of a kind and unique does not qualify it as art Kevin. A childs school painting of it's mother is unique and treasured by the parent but it is certainly not art. The artist does not brand his/her work as art that is done by other people over a period of time.

 

[kjsphoto]

Just because it is one of a kind and unique does not qualify it as art Kevin. A childs school painting of it's mother is unique and treasured by the parent but it is certainly not art. The artist does not brand his/her work as art that is done by other people over a period of time.

Hello Les,

Firstly I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas and it is good to hear from you again and I hope all is well!

A childs school painting of it's mother is unique and treasured by the parent but it is certainly not art.

Says who? Art is subjective, have you seen the contemporary in today’s galleries, I think the child could do better. But that is another topic.

Just because it is one of a kind and unique does not qualify it as art Kevin.

I didn't say it did, I said it makes it an original instead of another reproduction in the sea of multiples. And I said that if we started to treat it more like mediums that people think of art that maybe in the minds of the public we can have them start looking at photography as art instead of a medium of reproductions.

You guys asked the question, I gave an answer and just as I knew no one wants to hear it.
So why ask? I provided an answer and that is what I believe.

Anyway, it was really good hearing form you Les, Keep in touch!

Kev

 

[JBrunner]

That is so far from the truth. I love photography I hate digital and I hate what photography is turning into.

You know, I used to feel that way, but then I just realized I just don't need to be a part of that world. I just do my thing, and it makes me happy. Sometimes I make fun of the more stupid stuff, but that's just that, fun.

What is it they say? Oh yeah, don't try to teach a pig to sing, it frustrates you, and irritates the pig.

 

[boyooso]

What about a orchestra playing a symphony?

Which is art? Both!

With photography, the negative is the score and the print the performance.

In the end, there is a great deal of work and creativity that goes into each print a photographer makes...

I can understand the idea of making one of a kinds, but that does not make photography art. However,t is an interesting marketing ploy...

I really don't care if the general public think photography is art. I think photography is an amazing medium to represent things, and I love it!

Why do you need to call it fine art? why not call it photography!

Corey

 

[copake_ham]

You know, I used to feel that way, but then I just realized I just don't need to be a part of that world. I just do my thing, and it makes me happy. Sometimes I make fun of the more stupid stuff, but that's just that, fun.

What is it they say? Oh yeah, don't try to teach a pig to sing, it frustrates you, and irritates the pig.

 

[kjsphoto]

What about a orchestra playing a symphony?

Which is art? Both!

With photography, the negative is the score and the print the performance.

In the end, there is a great deal of work and creativity that goes into each print a photographer makes...

I can understand the idea of making one of a kinds, but that does not make photography art. However,t is an interesting marketing ploy...

I really don't care if the general public think photography is art. I think photography is an amazing medium to represent things, and I love it!

Why do you need to call it fine art? why not call it photography!

Corey

Corey, you are completely missing the point and again go back and read what I said.

I really don't care if the general public think photography is art.

I can assume then you do not make 100% of your income off selling your personal art then, so yes, why would you care especially when you are engaged in a company that profits from printing other peoples work, which is great in keeping traditional photography alive, Good for you guys!

If I had another job where I had a steady paycheck I probably wouldn't care either.


Thanks...

 

[boyooso]

I do make 100% of my income from photography. I take photography very seriously and believe it to be art. But in this world, today with this state of affairs it IS more photography than ART. And there seems to be a huge push to make photography into 'fine art' What is fine art anyway, why all the labels?

To be honest, if you look in all the galleries there isn't much art that fine. Go to Santa Fe, Jackson Hole, Scottsdale. Basically you have a bunch of people putting on a show of what their art is. They are selling an idea, not art.

Time will tell what art is, but it is likely that what we think is fine art today will fade away with the test of time and the real art will show through. Whatever medium it be, paint, bronze, pencil, photography... whatever.

Good Luck!

Corey

Corey, you are completely missing the point and again go back and read what I said.


I can assume then you do not make 100% of your income off your art then, so yes, why would you care. If I had another job where I had a steady paycheck I probably wouldn't care either.

Thanks...