Photography is just a craft

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 8, 2009

I saw the above (paraphrased) statement in another thread, and I didn't want to hijack that thread to begin a discussion of this topic, so here I am. I've heard the arguments many many times that defend the notion that photography is an art in the same way that painting and sculpture are. I'd like to hear someone who feels the opposite, that photography is just a craft, not an art, defend their position. I'll state for the record that I believe photography absolutely is an art. Certainly there is craft to it, in the sense that there is technique to master, and that technique can be qualitatively measured. Is there anyone out there who feels that photography not only begins, but ends, at technical craftsmanship? How does it do so? Why?

Steve Smith · Sep 8, 2009

It's something which can have varying percentages of art in it. It can be illustration, documentation, art and fine art (fine art being the same as art with a 40% increase in cost!).

Sometimes when someone comments on one of my landscape shots, I say that nature did the hard work and all I had to do was be there at the right time. Conversly, there is someone who lives near me who goes down to the beach and makes sculptures from the driftwood, rocks and other things he finds. He then photographs them. I would say that there is more art involved in his work than mine but to be honest,the art is in the sculpture and the photograph is really just documentation. Once the tide comes back in, the photograph is all that is left so I suppose it becomes art again.

Steve.

MattKing · Sep 8, 2009

I'm not sure that the word "just" belongs in the phrase "Photography is just a craft".

Otherwise, I agree with Steve Smith.

Matt

Nicholas Lindan · Sep 8, 2009

Steve Smith said:
sculptures from the driftwood, rocks ... photographs them ... the tide comes back in

Does he photograph them as a triptych: a work in progress; the finished piece; and finally its destructive tidal dénouement?

reellis67 · Sep 8, 2009

TheFlyingCamera said:
Is there anyone out there who feels that photography not only begins, but ends, at technical craftsmanship? How does it do so? Why?

A very interesting question. I can't respond directly because I'm not one of these people, but I am very interested to see if there can be civil discourse on this subject...

- Randy

Whiteymorange · Sep 8, 2009

Just a craft? All art should aspire to craftsmanship.

Mateo · Sep 8, 2009

I think art is just a craft. And for that matter fine art is just the craft of being a good salesman. It's a whole lot of "would a rose by any other name"

Nikanon · Sep 8, 2009

Art is a good balance of craftsmanship and emotional input and visualization, there are those who base only on theory and ideas and get very deep meaning in their photos with little skill and there are those who worry only about technicalities and think nothing of its romantic and emotional qualities, although it also depends on the way it is perceived i think photography TODAY is not based on craft, all ideologies and such, the overall ability and level of skill has gone down with digital to where people have a much lower standard set for what makes a fantastic photo or a fine artwork and there is rarely any impressive ability or craftsmanship found, mostly in places like this will you find craft, but if anything to sum it up, i think very few people will argue it is just a craft because its all of the opposite end of the spectrum , all thought no craft, but people THINK they have craft, but those are usually the digital users so again its all where you look, i guess i didnt really sum anything up and just threw an inane babel of poorly composed information, oops :-/

Bruce Watson · Sep 8, 2009

A lot of people separate the two -- the craft side and the art side. Even St. Ansel indicated that the purpose of the Zone System was to systematize the craft side. What I got from my readings of his various writings is he wanted photographers to be able to more easily master the craft of photography so they could use it to express their art. So in that way it's just like painting, sculpture, dance, music, etc. IOW, first you get your tools, then you use them to express your vision.

On the flip side, Pope Julius II clearly thought Michelangelo a "mere" craftsman and paid him as such. When he deemed it necessary to pay him at all. Left the poor man in complete poverty and starving much of the time. But back then "craftsmen" were a dime a dozen apparently.

noumin · Sep 8, 2009

I would say all things begin and end as craftmanship. I don't like the term technical craftmanship, for some reason this sounds contemptuous, as there's more to photography than just know how to operate the camera. To me photography or sculpture, painting - whatever, is all about creativity and about being craftsman enough to bring ones' vision into reality through ones' medium, but art ? I have no understanding of that concept, is it about money ?

doughowk · Sep 8, 2009

Art without Craft is a pattern arising from chaos, and is ownerless. If you do the Craft well, Art may arise unbidden.

Sirius Glass · Sep 8, 2009

I do not see it as craft versus art. I see it as the understanding and using the photo technology versus the art component.

Craft trivializes the technology.

Photo technology without the art component is not very interesting
The art component without technology is not very good.

Steve

Vaughn · Sep 8, 2009

Due or not, I tend to take a little more credit for my images than Steve .

My photography starts with seeing -- with the art of seeing. Then it gets technical (as tech as a wood and brass camera, good glass and modern film can be). The print is hand made, crafted, to meet or exceed the intensity of what I saw, experienced, wanted to get on film, what got on the film, and all that. The printing process is a three-way connection between the image (in the physical form of the negative), the print and myself. One informs the others and so on until the print is completed. It is the craft which gives me the tools and the freedom of making those informed decisions.

Bla bla bla...sorry, I babble. Basically, I do not separate art and craft.

I end the whole process with the cutting my own window mats (usually 8-ply) in a low tech way. So that's pretty much low tech on both ends.

Your mileage may differ...

Vaughn

Sirius Glass · Sep 8, 2009

Vaughn,

I meant that without the art component the result is

a traffic light pole coming out of someones head with a walk sign hanging out one ear and a don't walk sign hanging out the other

OR

the photo this year at Virginia beach looks like the one from last year at Coney Island with the people lined up like ducks in a shooting gallery but in a different order and some of the swim suit different.

Photography is requires both. Calling one craft is demeaning.

I have seen your work and you definitely have one foot well planted in each side.

Steve

AFlood · Sep 8, 2009

This is something that I think about a lot, you cannot explain it in such simple terms because as already mentioned photography is such a diverse subject, It can be a means of documentation, advertisement, illustration or it can be a means of artistic expression. To me, real art should not just be something that is beautiful, but should also evokes some sort of emotion in the viewer. An artist who uses photography as his/her medium will visualise the image they want to produce...

(or maybe they wont, but that opens another can of worms- ie, is it only art if the 'artist' intended to make it, for instance, I have a beautiful book called Photo Trouvee, http://www.phaidon.com/Default.aspx/Web/photo-trouvee-9780714845791 containing images which I would consider art, because of the context in which they are placed, although some might not because they are amateur photographs- Can art be produced without an artist?)

...and then use their skill and knowledge and craftmanship to produce that desired image, the artwork.
The trouble is that not all 'artists' have any technical or practical skills whatsoever. They may have vision, but do not have the skills to realise it, or vise versa.
I suppose a better question would be 'does the photographer consider themself an artist?'

I'm trying to come up with a better conclusion, but thats the best i can do for now

jongcelebes · Sep 8, 2009

Photography is just a craft? That's great since - by seeing nowdays phenomena - I think photography only a common living skill. Yeah, like swimming, driving or cooking. You don't need to be a superb one, at least you can shot properly that's enough. The rest is camera's job.
My challenge to go to this type of photography, I mean analog one, actually just to throw myself into its crafting-side. Art? I wish, but to give my respect to Adams, Feininger and Sugimoto; I should say my picture only my "work notes" or "pictorial diary" of me. Still ffaaarr away from craft or art.

Curt · Sep 8, 2009

Did Annie Lebowitz say that?

Maybe it was David Vestal?

At any rate, do you work hard at your craft?

Where does the Art and Science enter into the craft.

If I hand paint my frames does it make the entire piece a mixed media therefore qualifying as Art?

I think that would be a crafty way around the issue.

I'm going to consider it beyond my pay grade.

Jim Chinn · Sep 8, 2009

All photography is based in some level of craft. Not all photography attains the level of art. Every major art institution in the world has photographs as part of its permanent collection. The decision by the intelligensia as to the satus of photography as art was made a long time ago.

wclark5179 · Sep 8, 2009

Art or craft? It depends.

Ask the Bride & Groom whose wedding I made photographs of parents among many others. The Bride called me a week ago and said that the last photos of the grooms father were taken at their wedding. How do you think they view the images? Memories lasting forever, is that craft or art when your heart, mind & soul identifies with the photographs?

jd callow · Sep 8, 2009

Art is something that can be created from anything, but someone wishing to create art will probably choose a conduit that meets their desires (paint, words, cameras, etc...). To create a photographic print requires craft. Art can be the object, but art may be more the process (viewing it, listening to it, reading it, performing/creating it) and it is specific to the person where the object or event is simply a foil for what we have inside us.

So to say photography begins and ends as craft may be true. To say that a photograph cannot be art depends on the person, but it is not true for me.

YMMV

bsdunek · Sep 8, 2009

Photography is a medium, like painting, sculpture, pottery, wood carving, and many other things. You can do any of them with good craftsmanship, but that has nothing to do with art. Art is when you use whatever medium you wish, to express your ideas to others. IHMO.

bill schwab · Sep 8, 2009

Art is dead. Long live art.

sharris · Sep 8, 2009

Compelling discussion. Here's my input: I think analog photography (to narrow the scope a bit) is certainly comprised of both elements as are many other art forms comprised of technical mastery and suitable for artistic expression. For me, craft and by association the word 'craftsman', imparts mastery of certain technical skills. A Cabinet maker, for instance, is a craftsman that creates wonderful functional and appealing items. But I would not go as far as to call them art. Similarly, a photographer using the camera as their tool of choice and enlisting chemistries and other photographic and scientific disciplines must first be a competent technician / craftsman or any attempt at 'art' will likely be lost. For me, the point of departure between craft / craftsman and artist is the point at which the artist having understood and mastered the essential concepts and technical mastery, chooses to depart from convention in order to convey their desired vision to the audience. I think it is also fairly important that the vision be acknowledged by their peers (though it may be certainly considered unconventional at the time ) as effective. I think it goes too far to say that a single artist's vision is completely relative and only they must deem their results as effective to be considered art. That leaves too many heaps of trash in the backyards of the mentally ill occupants eligible for art funding! (And also explains why most of my 'pictures' would not be considered art!)

bdial · Sep 8, 2009

What is it about painting or sculpture that makes it art and not craft?

Is a Sam Maloof rocker craft and not art because it's a functional wooden sculpture?

Photography is not just craft, any more than painting is just art.

removed account4 · Sep 8, 2009

if people are suggesting that photography is the 2nd definition of craft
"2. Skill in evasion or deception; guile."
than yes .. photography is all craft.
it is not a mirror to reality but a well made deception.
nothing is real, it is all an abstraction, and numeric or film has absolutely nothing to do with it

Photography is just a craft

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Steve Smith

MattKing

Moderator

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

reellis67

Whiteymorange

Mateo

Nikanon

Bruce Watson

noumin

doughowk

Sirius Glass

Vaughn

Sirius Glass

AFlood

jongcelebes

Curt

Jim Chinn

wclark5179

jd callow

Moderator

bsdunek

bill schwab

Advertiser

sharris

bdial

removed account4

Photography is just a craft

Membership Council

Moderator

Advertiser

noumin

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency