why is it that you think 99% of photography isn't considered an art form?

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
multiplicity (not singular objects )
democratization ( everyone has a camera and everyone is a photographer )
technical perfection vs creativity

or is it something else ?
 
Last edited:

mgb74

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
MN and MA US
Format
Multi Format
Objective. 99% of photography isn't intended to be art (we can quibble about the %). It's intended for documentary purposes. Places you've been, people you know.

For example, when I take a photo of my granddaughter or grandson doing something, it's for me (and my family) to remember and enjoy in the future. I care about technical "correctness" (focus, exposure) but art is secondary.

Do I take photos intended as art? Yes. But it's still a minority of my photos. And, if you're talking about the public at large, it's a very small minority.

Do some of the photos taken for documentary purposes rise to the level of art? Sure, but few.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,716
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
It is art. It's as much art as any other photography. It's just not broadly significant or meaningful culturally (although it can be made to be, in many cases) - nor is it thought to be. Art is not some magic - it's mundane. Meaningful or significant art, on the other hand, is rare and can be difficult to accomplish.
 

Darkroom317

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
653
Location
Mishawaka, IN
Format
Large Format
jnantz said:
multiplicity (not singular objects )
democratization ( everyone has a camera and everyone is a photographer )
technical perfection vs creativity
Click to expand...

Several of those points also apply to printmaking. Photo has the issue of occupying multiple roles that many other media don't have. Photography is not just an art medium but one that is used for communication, documentation and commercial purposes such as advertising. Painting for instance doesn't really have these roles anymore. Like others have said much of photography isn't intended as art but is made for these other purposes.
 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,481
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
99% of painters aren't producing art either, as they are house painters, sign painters, fence painters, etc.

Same goes for photography as there are website/catalog product photographers, school yearbook photographers, mugshot photographers, passport photographers, etc.

An artist, however, cannot help themselves and can make meaningful art out of pretty much whatever they lay their hands too.
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,120
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
It is only art if somebody says it is...and then, it may be art only to that one person.
 
Last edited:

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,444
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
You get into the definition of art, which has much disagreement. My theory is art is anything that gets an emotional response from the viewer and usually has no other practical purpose although some photos can do both. So if a personal picture elicits love or other feelings, even though it i of a family member, it can still be art, more so maybe. A picture taken on a trip can have a remembrance purpose but the beauty of a particular shot could bring out feelings of aesthetic beauty which is art. There's no limit to the amount of art because more people are doing it. We don't stop like tasting food because we eat three times a day all our lives.
 

tnp651

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
177
Location
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Format
4x5 Format

In printmaking, it is customary to pull an edition and then destroy the plate or screen by marking or scratching it. A final print is pulled documenting that, guaranteeing that the edition is closed. With film photography you can scratch the negative (Ansel Adams had his negatives punched with a ticket cancellation machine after his death). But with digital, how can you prove you haven't stashed a thumb drive somewhere? Collector value is based on rarity as well as artistic merit.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Because they weren't made as art perhaps.
 

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,673
Location
Portland OR
Format
8x10 Format
Perhaps 99% of people considering photography don't consider it art. Reading Edward Westons writing the last few days, he considers far less than 1% to be art.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
It's a question of intent. It's art (of debatable artistic value) if the creator intends it to be art. If they don't, then it isn't. Until someone after their death finds the image, declares it to be art, and markets it as such. Then the limit is not so much the (debatable) artistic value but the market value, because found images by anonymous dead people are not nearly as marketable as images already determined to be art by known individuals with a market track record.

PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE MADE WITHOUT JUDGEMENT ON THE RIGHTNESS, FAIRNESS, OR OTHER -NESSes OF THE CRITERIA. JUST A FACTUAL OBSERVATION.
 

Maris

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,570
Location
Noosa, Australia
Format
Multi Format
Rubbish question, don't waste time on it.
"Why is it you think". Presumptuous postulate assuming what follows is worthy of thought.
"99%' . Why not some other percentage or any percentage.
"photography". What's photography? So many different ways of making pictures.
"isn't considered". Who is doing the considering assuming anyone is.
"art form". Never been any consensus on what this means.

Look, it's all manipulation anyway so I've been told, so any answer is moot.
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,671
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
The problem is that "art" requires an artist, and they are few and far between. Art is the idea coupled with a sensibility. It is not craft, or intention. The idea must be a good one, and the sensibility must be....aesthetic.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,521
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
You’re on a roll!
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Maris said:
.... Never been any consensus on what this means...
Click to expand...
A consensus, by definition, is impossible here. There has to be a willingness to reach one.
 
OP
OP

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

but is print making segregated from the rest of the "fine arts"? but I think you are right, its an identity crisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…