Is Photography Art? Why/ why Not?

[Andy K]

If this is art, then photography is definitely art.

 

[Claire Senft]

Personally I do not think that photographers should waste any time being at all concerned about the question. This I feel should be just as true of those that market their photographs. Do the best work that you can while ignoring the questions pro or con about art would be my advice.

Can your ego handle being just a photographer and not being concerned about whether or not it is considered by others to be art? I can.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

She said that it is not considered art because, in essence, there is no artist. The final result was simply a matter of chemisty and physics.

The educated establishment said the same sort of thing about the piano in its early days...the artist was removed from direct contact with the strings by levers and hammers, was mechanical, and therefore wouldn't allow the soul of the artist to be expressed.

Artistic expression originates within the artists mind, and can be manifested in any medium.

Murray

 

[BradS]

"Her educational background was in Art History"

Thing about Art History is that you either study it because you have a passion for Art, or you study it because its an easy way of getting your parents (or the state) to pay for another 3 years of school without too much effort on your behalf. I think I can guess which of the two groups this person is in.

By her logic painting isn't art because chemists make the pigments and the brushes are mass produced in factories, Sculpture isn't art because the person just hits bits of rock with a hammer and chisel and... well... it's all just too silly for words. She needs to try putting her brain in to gear before engaging her mouth - but then, why change what I am certain is the habit of a lifetime?...

Point her at some of Gandolfi's images and see what she says then!

Cheers, Bob.

Actually, I am quite certain that she is well north of fifty years old and continues to pay for her education herself. Quite because it is simply her passion and she now has the means to endulge it. She is one of the most intelligent and interesting people I know.

Neither do I share your opinion of Gandolfi's work by the way....but I obviously, stand in the minority in that regard.

 

[Ole]

We've had this discussion before, but at that time it was everyone against Michael Scarpitti / Ornello Pederzoli...

It boils down to (as it did then) not a definition of "photography as art" or not, but to different people using different definitions of "art". Some people define "art" very narrowly, like the one wo only included Norman Rockwell. Others have wider definitions, and most "art photographers" would certainly include photography as one possible aspect of "art".

By the Classical (note capitalisation) definition of "art" photography is not an art and cannot be one: There is no Muse named "Argentia" or whatever the muse for photography would have been. But fortunately society has moved a little forward since classical times...

By the same argument, baseball is not a sport. Perfectly correct, if your dictionary is old enough: "Sport" originally meant hunting and angling (and one other - was it bull-baiting?), and nothing else.

But that was then; this is now. And words change with time, and I'm willing to concede that baseball can be a sport (just don't ask me about wrestling).

 

[roteague]

When I worked as a C++ programmer (about 10 years ago) I came to the conclusion that C++ was invented by Bjarne as a stunt to promote his book. Why else would it have so many boobytraps? Completley unfathomable rules about virtual/non-virtual contrutors/destructors.

A language I thoroughly enjoy using.

 

[jimgalli]

Artistic expression originates within the artists mind, and can be manifested in any medium.

Murray

Careful now. Don't want to leave the door open too wide or the digital folks will want to come in. Oh, I'm such a troublemaker. Oh well, the other moderators can clean up the mess. I'm off to find a suitable Christmas tree and try out my new Jim Galli shutter. more later.

 

[BradS]

Now there's a book I'm glad I don't have to read any more!

When I worked as a C++ programmer (about 10 years ago) I came to the conclusion that C++ was invented by Bjarne as a stunt to promote his book. Why else would it have so many boobytraps? Completley unfathomable rules about...

eeee....hooo boy!

And to me, there is a subtle and aesthetically pleasing beauty to the language.

I take absolutely no offense to your view. I too felt that way about C++ at one time. Might have even been ten years ago. The language hasn't changed much in that time. I guess I have.

 

[Troy Hamon]

I just visited the Louvre in Paris and there where not photographs there. I also visited the Orsay and no photographs there. I ask where there were photographs in Paris and was directed to an show hung on a fence.

Art?

The museums in Paris are defined by periods of time. The Louvre artwork pretty much predates photography (though not entirely). The Orsay has an entire room dedicated to early photography, though the presentation is somewhat different than we would expect from a typical museum. The museum time frame ends in the early 1900's. The photography is large volumes of small images that are presented more as history than art. I haven't been to the museum of modern art in Paris, but I would go there and look before writing off the entire city... And there tend to be a number of temporary photography showings in galleries or museums throughout the city. Better luck next visit...

 

[Troy Hamon]

The Orsay photography page...

 

[Dorothy Blum Cooper]

Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both.

Photography is the process of making pictures by means of the action of light. It involves recording light patterns, as reflected from objects, onto a sensitive medium through a timed exposure. The process is done through mechanical, chemical or digital devices commonly known as cameras.

Definitions courtesy of wikipedia.org

Both photographer & artist have tools to create. Whether you choose oils, pastels, charcoals or film to project your final image is irrelevant (in my opinion).

 

[MattCarey]

Actually, I am quite certain that she is well north of fifty years old and continues to pay for her education herself.

We've had this discussion before, but at that time it was everyone against Michael Scarpitti / Ornello Pederzoli...

As I recall, Scarpatti also known for frequenting "love of older women" forums...

Perhaps your admin was one of Scarpatti's conquests?

Matt

 

[BradS]

As I recall, Scarpatti also known for frequenting "love of older women" forums...

Perhaps your admin was one of Scarpatti's conquests?

Matt

Hmmm, now that I think of it, I've never seen Scapetti/Ornello and she in the same room at the same time...naw.

 

[jvarsoke]

Strange, the 1960s film "The Eyes of Laura Mars" takes on this exact question with much hubbaballoo. "Are these violent images a way for Mars to insinuate photography into the world of Art?!" or something like that. Had me nonplused; thought that dead horse had been all flogged out some time around 1930.

Art's a pretty slippery word to define, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it. Poetry, after all, is just picking words from a dictionary -- you're not "creating" anything. *cough*.

I think I'll hang my hat on the St. Francis quote. Seems a good redoubt in casual conversion.

-j

 

[firecracker]

I think what I find interesting is that we are pretty much talking about the context/history of one's work, even to define the content of it. I mean that's too informationally driven. But art speaks from the heart, and it touches someone else's. It cuts that kind of a path when it communicates with the audience.

The essence of the work of art historians seems to have become more like censorship in a way. It's the same process as contests and competitions where you look at the juries and judges, and I don't know much luck you can have to win their desires that you don't know too much about because you don't really care in the first place.

But you still have to meet their requirements, which may have nothing to with the work itself. So, even if they deny your work, that doesn't mean your work doesn't exist or means/values less than it is. It does exist and has a full body of energy and spirit potentially others can feel. It's a matter of luck that when your work meets the audience, true audience, you will be acknowledged as an artist.

 

[removed account4]

i dunno what school she got her degree at, but i went to college and studied art history in the 1980s and photography was included in the coursebook "art through the ages" which i think is a pretty standard art history text.

maybe she is a person who believes that framing and composition of something that already exists isn't "art" or making a photographic print isn't "art" ... i'm wondering what she believes art is ...

 

[Christopher Colley]

http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/photo.shtm
http://www.nga.gov.au/Collection/Photography.html
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/whatsnew.html
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/photo/index.php
http://www.moma.org/collection/depts/photography/index.html
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/department.asp?dep=19
http://www.cartermuseum.org/photography_set.html
http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/

there is more! but I am sure the point is made, if it wasnt art I am sure it wouldnt be claimed to be so by museums all over the world.....

 

[rfshootist]

I just visited the Louvre in Paris and there where not photographs there. I also visited the Orsay and no photographs there. I ask where there were photographs in Paris and was directed to an show hung on a fence.

Art?

Not sure if I have understood it correctly, after this personal experience in the Louvre and the Musee d' Orsay what is your conclusion now exactly?

bertram

 

[Struan Gray]

I think the Paris photographic galleries were probably all sleeping off their hangovers

http://www.parisphoto.fr/

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Is Photography Art? If someone looks at a photograph and accepts it as art, then it is art ...at least for that one person.

I don't think that any "art" exists before that first instant. If an "art work" is produced for one's own pleasure and never shown, then it is simply mental masturbation. If a caveman creates a drawing of a deer on a cave wall, and it stays undiscovered for thousands of years, to me, it only becomes "art" upon its discovery and it's appreciation as a piece of art.

Which brings to mind the point that, being in a museum doesn't necessarily qualify something as being art. Some very ugly , questionably pretty or fairly ordinary things are kept in museums for historic value, too.

Not any more, now it's a business that failed the test of time. Imagine if someone took canvas or paint out of the hands of the master painters. Why are the contact printers putting up with the lack of supply of contact printing paper.

I just visited the Louvre in Paris and there where not photographs there. I also visited the Orsay and no photographs there. I ask where there were photographs in Paris and was directed to an show hung on a fence.

Art?

Curt, I'm surprised you couldn't find any photography museums here, especially since last month was "Photography Month" in Paris, and many of the exhibits haven't closed yet, even as I write this.

The main photography museums here are the Centre National de la Photographie, the Maison Europeen de la Photographie, the Hotel de Sully (not forgetting that "hotel" in French can mean a mansion), The Foundation Cartier-Bresson. Also, there are often exhibitions at city hall (currently hosting a major Willy Ronis show), The George Pompidou Center (which is the principal museum of contemporary art in Paris and which currently hosts an exhibit by William Klein), The Bibliotheque National (which last year had a great Capa exhibit). Not to mention lots of galleries and smaller exhibitions. Sorry you missed out.

On the other hand, you're right to insinuate that France is a little slow on the uptake regarding the consideration of photography as art. It seems to me that it is still mainly considered to be a means of documentation rather than expression. A French viewer who looks at an Oliver Gagliani close-up photo of dripping white paint on dark wood might ask, "what is it?", while never thinking to ask the same question of a Jackson Pollack painting. Anyway, someone who asks, "is photography art?" tends to automatically label themself as being incapable of making the mental leap from real/3D to abstract/2D. (ie: "That's not a man. That's a photograph of a man".)
By the way, the first photo gallery in France was the late Jean Dieuzide's "Chateau d'Eau" in Toulouse. Dieuzaide caused scandal when he "dared" to display Robert Doisneau's photographs in frames in a small Paris exhibition. That was in the 1950's, when photographs were only relegated to the same 'art' level as a Xerox, thus deemed not worthy of more than thumbtacks to be put unto a wall. Many viewers actually laughed at the framed pictures! (Dieuzaide told me this).

And don't forget the famous quote attributed to Cartier-Bresson, regarding his attitude toward the West Coast photographers: "I don't understand these guys. The world is falling apart and all they call photograph is rocks and trees". Ostensibly, he was an observant photographer. That's why it's ironic to me that he could be wearing blinders to that extent. His comment insinuates that beauty is not worth recording or interpreting, but war and misery are. As though there is some sort of unspoken contest for "Most Legitimate Use of Photography". While I respect Cartier-Bresson for his contributions, this attitude is completely idiotic! (don't tell me to speak no ill of the dead, as I more-or-less said this to his face in 1999). I'm afraid that his influence has founded an attitude which still prevails here in France. Many French people I've met (and some Americans, too!) just don't seem to "get" that photography is good for more than just one thing, just as a pencil might be used to either write with, draw, or poke somebody if they ask "Is photography art?" !

 

[rfshootist]

Hi Christopher

[QUOTE
On the other hand, you're right to insinuate that France is a little slow on the uptake regarding the consideration of photography as art.
B Dieuzaide caused scandal when he "dared" to display Robert Doisneau's photographs in frames in a small Paris exhibition. That was in the 1950's, when photographs were only relegated to the same 'art' level as a Xerox, thus deemed not worthy of more than thumbtacks to be put unto a wall. Many viewers actually laughed at the framed pictures! (Dieuzaide told me this).

I am honestly surprised, did not know that this attitude still existed 1950, after all these years, since the days of Nadar !! A french once told me that France is a country where people are used to think in hierarchies , and if something got it's place it is hard get it off there. Sounded plausible to me, I know that hierarchy very well.

[/QUOTE]
And don't forget the famous quote attributed to Cartier-Bresson, regarding his attitude toward the West Coast photographers: "I don't understand these guys. The world is falling apart and all they call photograph is rocks and trees". Ostensibly, he was an observant photographer. That's why it's ironic to me that he could be wearing blinders to that extent. His comment insinuates that beauty is not worth recording or interpreting, but war and misery are.

I always suspected him to be one of those who kept photography as no-art !! )

[/QUOTE]
While I respect Cartier-Bresson for his contributions, this attitude is completely idiotic! (don't tell me to speak no ill of the dead, as I more-or-less said this to his face in 1999).


Ah you met him personally ! Great, I would have been so very interested in talking to him personally, too late. :-(
I know one could meet him in the Rue Rivoli where he lived and where he took frequently a walk, even when he was in his late 80s.
Somebody told me he had been in Paris in the 80s and took some potos on the Pont Neuf when an elder gentlemen stopped and started a conversation in English about photography. He said , yes, in former times he had shot many many photos too in Paris and elsewhere, with his Leica.
The tourist at home detected some months later this had been HCB !!!
A missed opportunity which willl bother him 'til the end of his days !!!

Regards,
Bertram
How long runs the Ronis exposition ? Any links ? Thanks in advance !

 

[donbga]

I found myself engaged in a conversation with somebody in the Administrative side of the company at lunch today. Her educational background was in Art History. The conversation turned from the usual topics to my interest in Photogrpahy....anyway, at some point she asserted that Photography is not art. She said that it is not considered art because, in essence, there is no artist. The final result was simply a matter of chemisty and physics.

Now, I am no artist. I don't even aspire to be an artist...but, try as I might to convice her otherwise, she steadfastly maintained that Photography is not art...in some kind of academic sense, I guess.

Thoughts?

Yeah. Don't waste your time discussing the issue. She is an obvious dolt.

Don Bryant

 

[BradS]

Yeah. Don't waste your time discussing the issue. She is an obvious dolt.

Don Bryant

A little harsh.

 

[esanford]

Thomas Hoving, former Director of Metropolitan Museum of Art had this to say about photography in 'Art for Dummies'....." "I have severely neglected photography, which I believe to be certainly one of the fine arts...(I changed the name of the Prints Department at the Metropolitan to that of Prints and photographs)....Very roughly speaking, photography has experienced the following very general periods in the development of its own styles: 1865 to 1867 , the early period of experimentation; around the beginning of WWI until the mid-1920s, a time of photographic intensity; 1929 to 1938, when perspective was supreme; from 1952 until the 1990s onward, period of introspection. Finally, today photography exhibits the same diversity of styles as other media fine arts." Art for Dummies pp. 173

 

[Curt]

Graphic Arts is a process, Graphic Design is creative.

I know a guy who is an Artist with drywall.

Ansel Adams had a photograph of a tree stump. Minor White saw it and said: "What does it mean?" Ansel said: "mean?, It's just a tree stump".

I wish I had Ansel in my crit classes back in college. It would have eliminated hundreds of hours in useless discussion.