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

[removed account4]

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

or is it something else ?

 

[juan]

This should be good.

 

[mgb74]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

It is only art if somebody says it is...and then, it may be art only to that one person.

 

[BrianShaw]

Documentation

 

[George Mann]

Snap shooting rarely produces images of artistic merit.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

 

[Pieter12]

"Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the capacity to turn all subjects into works of art."

 

[tnp651]

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.

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]

Because they weren't made as art perhaps.

 

[dpurdy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Aesthetic by whose standards?

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

You’re on a roll!

 

[Pieter12]

But with digital, how can you prove you haven't stashed a thumb drive somewhere?

Sign and number the prints.

 

[Vaughn]

.... Never been any consensus on what this means...

A consensus, by definition, is impossible here. There has to be a willingness to reach one.

 

[awty]

It has no relevancey, its gallery speak.
If you got something to say then say it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

or is it something else ?

because it has become a real art to sell a photohraph

 

[removed account4]

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.

but is print making segregated from the rest of the "fine arts"? but I think you are right, its an identity crisis.