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

[foc]

( I am watching this one from the sideline)

 

[Wallendo]

I suspect that 99% of photographs taken are not taken with artistic intent.

Although I don't have any access to objective data, I suspect a majority of current images are created for social media ... to be viewed once or twice and then discarded.

In my own personal collection of around 50,000 images (there are a lot of duplicated images within that group), most of them are either family archives, family snapshots, generic travel photos, documentation, or equipment tests. Especially when shooting with my phone, I take pictures to remind myself where I parked my car, pictures or schedules and calendars, shots of restaurant menus for later reference, etc. Although I try to apply basic principles of framing and composition whenever possible, I suspect very few of my own photographs have real artistic intent.

 

[Craig75]

the boat is fueled up, sandwiches packed, cooler stocked, but OP forget his bait on this disappointing fishing trip.

 

[removed account4]

the boat is fueled up, sandwiches packed, cooler stocked, but OP forget his bait on this disappointing fishing trip.

its not a fishing trip .. I am interested in learning form this global random group of camera users why they think that in the greater "art world" photography is segregated from the rest of the "fine arts". I've heard lectures by curators and gallery peoples and collections people at museums and know what they say, I'd like to hear what others say.

I suspect that 99% of photographs taken are not taken with artistic intent.

I'm not so much interested in in "what is art". "intent vs no intent". im more interested in the mechanics of the people who buy sell display broker in &c photography and why for 196 years since its first use as a way to apply a decorative element to ceramics, it still has 2nd class status.
back in the day I part owned a gallery with a bunch of people after getting the run around from the galleries in the Boston region, same with galleries in NYC .. had nothing to do with content or intent but the fact that the images were photographs ...

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Many of us are conditioned to think of art as what is hung in a museum, which historically has been overwhelmingly paintings, drawings, sculptures, and so on. Most are not cultured to include photographs in museums or art galleries, and when they are included they are few and far in-between. But photography can certainly be art in the traditional cultural and commerce sense of the term. However, if I walk into an art shop and see photographs my expectation is that the works ought to have a much higher level of creative intent and quality - both technically and artistically. I expect to feel the creator's intent rather than chance; there needs to be a story with interpretable messages, ideally but not necessarily a clear one. I think classic art most always communicates the creator's intent and there's a story along with two-way asynchronous communication established. The success as art is precisely in the effectiveness of that communication whether the message is what the creator intended or not, as long as the message is impactful in some way. On the other hand, if some work - any work regardless of medium - is presented as art and doesn't possess these attributes, then it is poor or failed art - medium notwithstanding.

Anyhow, that's my personal 2 cents worth with which you can choose to agree, or not.

Mike

 

[guangong]

Per thread. This is like asking why 99% of stuff produced by pencils and typewriters are not poetry, novels, or plays. A camera is simply an instrument capable of many different tasks, one of which is producing a work of art.

 

[removed account4]

Per thread. This is like asking why 99% of stuff produced by pencils and typewriters are not poetry, novels, or plays. A camera is simply an instrument capable of many different tasks, one of which is producing a work of art.

not asking what is art, asking why is it you might think the people who run collections departments of museums and art history departments and galleries segregate photography from other "fine art" art forms. its got nothing to do with what is art, but why is photographic art, things that are already accepted into the art-world done by Adams Eggleston Shore B+H Becher, Atkins, Weston, Crewdson, Sherman, Disfarmer, and many others in the pantheon of Photography not part of the "fine art" collection as a whole, but the photographic work is segregated away into the basement space ... if it is already accepted as "fine art" shouldn't it not be segregated as if it doesn't count ?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Art is determined by the viewer, not the creator.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

Now I think this practice is silly. It can create the rarity and thus increase the value of existing items but that doesn't make them any better or more artful. I condemn those practices because they are done only for the money.

 

[removed account4]

Now I think this practice is silly. It can create the rarity and thus increase the value of existing items but that doesn't make them any better or more artful. I condemn those practices because they are done only for the money.

it might not make it better or more artful but it will insure, if the person is honest, that the maker isn't going to make 100 copies of the same print after they claim it was a limited edition or whatever, so the people that paid $$ for the image won't be hosed ... the whole editions thing is a scam, because the photographer can just change paper stocks or developer or size of the image and claim it isn't part of the "edition". I used to disassemble my negatives after I got a good print could never make another, and it insured the person or people who bought them wouldn't dilute the value of the thing they bought from me.

 

[Chan Tran]

it might not make it better or more artful but it will insure, if the person is honest, that the maker isn't going to make 100 copies of the same print after they claim it was a limited edition or whatever, so the people that paid $$ for the image won't be hosed ... the whole editions thing is a scam, because the photographer can just change paper stocks or developer or size of the image and claim it isn't part of the "edition". I used to disassemble my negatives after I got a good print could never make another, and it insured the person or people who bought them wouldn't dilute the value of the thing they bought from me.

Yes but let not doing limited edition because something is of limited edition does make it more valuable in term of money but not a better piece of art. So it's all about the money.
That reminds me of what my father used to say. "Art is like Love, it's so beautiful when it's given freely but not so much when it's for sale."

 

[removed account4]

Yes but let not doing limited edition because something is of limited edition does make it more valuable in term of money but not a better piece of art. So it's all about the money.
That reminds me of what my father used to say. "Art is like Love, it's so beautiful when it's given freely but not so much when it's for sale."

yes, if you are attempting to make a living as a freelance artist, its about the money. i wish I had a good meme

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In Russian language artist means actor. They have official Russian union of photo artists. Those are acting like they are making art with photography. Many if not most are using digital cameras and some are into heavy processing. It is fake art.
Real art is made by hands from zero. Known as drawings, paintings and so on.
But it doesn't mean I'm not going to see Andy Warhol's installations in AGO. In fact, every museum, art gallery I go, I check first of they have photography. Good photos doesn't need to be called art to be worth of museum.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...but why is photographic art, things that are already accepted into the art-world done by Adams Eggleston Shore B+H Becher, Atkins, Weston, Crewdson, Sherman, Disfarmer, and many others in the pantheon of Photography not part of the "fine art" collection as a whole, but the photographic work is segregated away into the basement space ... if it is already accepted as "fine art" shouldn't it not be segregated as if it doesn't count ?

I think it's because most people who are well steeped in the Fine Art World do not consider photography a 'serious' art form. The essence of their argument would probably be, "The hand of the artist is removed from the work".

From their perspective, all you have to do is buy some film someone else makes, put it in a machine mass produced, develop the film in solutions someone else makes, and print it on paper someone else makes with solutions someone else makes. Like making soup from scratch vs ripping open a Lipton soup package and pouring it into boiling water. The truth may be different to varying degrees, but it's the overall impression they have.

Three other factors come into play.

One; anybody can pick up a camera and take a photograph. It's too easy. (Ya, ya, ya, I know...it's what you photograph, but that doesn't remove the fact that toddlers can take photographs).

Two; most photographs are not stable in the way a 'serious' collector would want a work of art to be. A lifespan of hundreds of years just doesn't cut it, as most photographs could only pass through a small number of collectors while degrading all the time...like buying a stock guaranteed to lower in value. Photographs with lifespans closer to a thousand years stand a better chance.

Thirdly; in the Fine Art World, it could be argued that painters are perceived as novelists while photographers are seen more like poets who parse, refine, and present fragments of a larger whole. (This is patently untrue, but they would argue that there is so much more to interpret in a painting compared to a photograph).

It would be interesting to see the ratio of novelists earning a living from their books to poets earning a living from their books...I bet the financially successful artist painter to financially successful artist photographer ratio is probably pretty much the same.

I only took fine art at art schools for two years and have all but shunned the gallery world, so hopefully things have changed, but I doubt it.

 

[Vaughn]

yes, if you are attempting to make a living as a freelance artist, its about the money. i wish I had a good meme

Limiting editions keeps one from having to keep printing old images. It required the confidence that one will not only continue to make new work, but new work that is equal or greater than one's previous work.

 

[Arthurwg]

Aesthetic by whose standards?

You'll have to ask an artist for that answer.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure that permanence is as important as it once may have been - performance art and sculptures that appear to have been constructed from objects found in a junk drawer come to mind.
I do believe though that it is photography's ubiquitousness that causes it to be approached differently.

 

[radiant]

https://i.redd.it/ouv5qjvtzpe71.png

 

[Robert Maxey]

multiplicity (not singular objects )
democratization ( everyone has a camera and everyone is a photographer )
technical perfection vs creativity

or is it something else ?

Simply BECAUSE everyone has a camera. And because most people do not know what it takes to make a great image. And we live in a time where it is unwise to say the emperor has no clothes, we simply accept everyone's work as "great" because arguing with a photographer who know little about photography is too hard. And I am not sure what one should consider a masterpiece these days.

As most gathered here know and well understand, quite often the darkroom is where the great image happens. I wanted to be Karsh, because his work is amazing. Karsh I'll never be.

Some processes like Dye Transfer can't be faked. The real work starts with far more effort than most photographers will ever contemplate or practice. I love Technicoolor IB prints because I know what it took to make those motion pictures in Glorious Technicolor and I appreciate the now gone craft. I use to drag friends to presentations of real Technicolor IB prints and I talk more about the technology and craft than what the actors on the screen do and say. Garbo was not my hero; that status was reserved for Natalie Klamus.

Or the Flexichrome process. Aimed at the "amateur" who wanted to color his or her images. A process that is stunning but beyond the patience of 99.9% of most people. They have Photo Shop. The process steps are: expose the matrix film, then develop, then rinse, soak in a stop bath, then a hot water wash, chill the matrix, then bleach, and fix, and wash again. Next, the black dye bath, then bathe in acetic acid, then another acetic acid transfer bath. Transfer the image and then dry. Coloring can then begin.

This effort or skill required to create some images is lost on many who believe all that all you need is a digital camera and a little PS time.

I think the question you raised is a good one because photography has never been fully accepted as an "art" form because everyone could make a picture. Kodak said, "you press the button and we'll do the rest."

Bob

 

[Pieter12]

From their perspective, all you have to do is buy some film someone else makes, put it in a machine mass produced, develop the film in solutions someone else makes, and print it on paper someone else makes with solutions someone else makes. Like making soup from scratch vs ripping open a Lipton soup package and pouring it into boiling water.

Very few painters today grind their own pigments, make their own brushes or even stretch their own canvases. And even when such things are done, it is usually by assistants.

 

[Pieter12]

I will repeat my post that seems to have been ignored: "Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the capacity to turn all subjects into works of art."

 

[faberryman]

I will repeat my post that seems to have been ignored: "Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the capacity to turn all subjects into works of art."

If, in your judgment, photography is not an art form in itself, what are the criteria for determining whether something is an art form in itself? How did you arrive at such criteria?

 

[Robert Maxey]

Aesthetic by whose standards?

Therein in lies the rub. Impossible to define art for others, just yourself. Silly to argue, I should think. All I can do is buy or not buy. Hang it on a wall or not. I would never buy or hang "Moonrise Hernandez" on my wall because I do not consider it a masterpiece. Yet I do so admire Mr. Adams.

Please do not flame me because the above is MY opinion. And not being able to have an opinion is what makes this discussion problematic.

Big Smiley.

Bob

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Many of us are conditioned to think of art as what is hung in a museum, which historically has been overwhelmingly paintings, drawings, sculptures, and so on. Most are not cultured to include photographs in museums or art galleries, and when they are included they are few and far in-between. But photography can certainly be art in the traditional cultural and commerce sense of the term. However, if I walk into an art shop and see photographs my expectation is that the works ought to have a much higher level of creative intent and quality - both technically and artistically. I expect to feel the creator's intent rather than chance; there needs to be a story with interpretable messages, ideally but not necessarily a clear one. I think classic art most always communicates the creator's intent and there's a story along with two-way asynchronous communication established. The success as art is precisely in the effectiveness of that communication whether the message is what the creator intended or not, as long as the message is impactful in some way. On the other hand, if some work - any work regardless of medium - is presented as art and doesn't possess these attributes, then it is poor or failed art - medium notwithstanding.

Anyhow, that's my personal 2 cents worth with which you can choose to agree, or not.

Mike

Photos are treated as art in MOMA (Museum of Modern Art) The Met Museum, O'Keeffe Museum (Santa Fe), and the Getty Museum in LA and many other famous museums as well.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

From The Metropolitan Museum of Art - The Met - in NYC:
Photographs
Established as an independent curatorial department in 1992, The Met's Department of Photographs houses a collection of approximately seventy-five thousand works spanning the history of photography from its invention in the 1830s to the present. Among the treasures from the early years of the medium are a rare album of photographs by William Henry Fox Talbot made just months after he presented his invention to the public; a large collection of portrait daguerreotypes by the Boston firm of Southworth and Hawes; landscape photographs of the American West by Timothy O'Sullivan and Carleton Watkins; and fine examples of French photography from the 1850s by Edouard Baldus, Charles Nègre, Gustave Le Gray, Henri Le Secq, Nadar, and others.
https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/collection-areas/photographs

...
Also in 2007, the Museum inaugurated the Joyce and Robert Menschel Hall for Modern Photography, the Metropolitan's first gallery designed specifically for the display of photographs created since 1960. With installations that change every eight months, Menschel Hall allows the department to show its contemporary holdings within the broader context of photographic traditions on view in the adjacent Robert Wood Johnson, Jr. Gallery and in the nearby Howard Gilman Gallery and the Galleries for Drawings, Prints, and Photographs (gallery 691, gallery 692, and gallery 693).