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

[Pieter12]

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?

The fact is that photography, like lithography or painting, is just a process. It is the implementation that produces art.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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.

I think the issue to those breathing the rarified air of the Fine Art World, is the number of degrees of separation they perceive in photography from the hand of the artist to a finished print.

In their minds it goes, painters intent, hand, brush, paint, canvas, whereas a photograph goes through photographers intent, camera & lens (photomechanical engineer), film emulsion (sensitometrist), developer (photochemical engineer), enlarger & lens (photomechanical engineer) paper emulsion (sensitometrist) developer/toner (photochemical engineer).

This is a cultural perception which makes no sense, because pianos also remove ones hands from the strings through levers and hammers. In other words, pianos are machines, yet have they the blessing/acceptance in The Art World. The only difference between photographers and pianists is that pianos modulate/control sound and cameras modulate/control light.

 

[Pieter12]

I think the issue to those breathing the rarified air of the Fine Art World, is the number of degrees of separation they perceive in photography from the hand of the artist to a finished print.

In their minds it goes, painters intent, hand, brush, paint, canvas, whereas a photograph goes through photographers intent, camera & lens (photomechanical engineer), film emulsion (sensitometrist), developer (photochemical engineer), enlarger & lens (photomechanical engineer) paper emulsion (sensitometrist) developer/toner (photochemical engineer).

This is a cultural perception which makes no sense, because pianos also remove ones hands from the strings through levers and hammers. In other words, pianos are machines, yet have they the blessing/acceptance in The Art World. The only difference between photographers and pianists is that pianos modulate/control sound and cameras modulate/control light.

Once again, the camera like the piano, is a tool. It is the output that is or isn't considered art, and the definition and acceptance of that as art varies widely. Examples: WeeGee, John Cage.

As far as how far removed the artist is from the process look at Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons. Not that I am endorsing any of the above, but the art world (critics, curators, collectors, museums) seems to.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

*Note* I am not defending, just guessing at some people in The Art Worlds impression of photography.

 

[removed account4]

Murray and Pieter12
thank you for understanding my OP ..
its not necessarily about art its about visibility ..
and it is strange ... it makes me wonder if all the other
collection departments have a grudge. LOL

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...its not necessarily about art its about visibility ..
and it is strange ... it makes me wonder if all the other
collection departments have a grudge. LOL

Yup, both public and private art galleries need bodies cycling through. If your genre isn't the flavour of the day or not a personal passion of the owner/director, your work languishes in drawers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yup, both public and private art galleries need bodies cycling through. If your genre isn't the flavour of the day or not a personal passion of the owner/director, your work languishes in drawers.

You have to do what you like for yourself. What good is trying to please others if it isn't your style? Just don't quit your day job.

 

[Pieter12]

From a cynical point of view, photographs do not usually generate enough public interest or profit than painting, drawing and the plastic arts. Older "classic" paintings can be quite large, colorful, impressive and of course rare and one of a kind. Older "classic" photos can be small, dull and difficult to appreciate. As far a most photography not being considered art, it is because it doesn't fit into the current or historically accepted norms for defining art. And 99% of photographs, judging from what people think good enough to share with the world through the internet, is trash anyway. But what might be seen as trash today might become accepted as art someday, just like outsider art is today.

 

[fdonadio]

Art is determined by the viewer, not the creator.

After reading most of the thread, this opinion is the one I agree the most. One important thing to note is that the viewers’ opinion can be highly influenced by the media and the the so called “influencers”.

 

[Pieter12]

After reading most of the thread, this opinion is the one I agree the most. One important thing to note is that the viewers’ opinion can be highly influenced by the media and the the so called “influencers”.

Also by cultural and educational background, interests (including self-interest, as in investment and personal involvement).

 

[faberryman]

After reading most of the thread, this opinion is the one I agree the most. One important thing to note is that the viewers’ opinion can be highly influenced by the media and the the so called “influencers”.

So you take someone who has no background or education in art or art history into a gallery to view an exhibition of, say, one of the abstract expressionists, and he says it isn't art because his three year old could do better, is he, as viewer, the arbiter of whether such abstract expressionist's work is art? How about Duchamp's urinal?

 

[Pieter12]

So you take someone who has no background or education in art or art history into a gallery to view an exhibition of, say, one of the abstract expressionists, and he says it isn't art because his three year old could do better, is he, as viewer, the arbiter of whether such abstract expressionist's work is art? How about Duchamp's urinal?

For that individual (despite his or her flawed logic) it is not art.

 

[Pieter12]

 

[faberryman]

For that individual (despite his or her flawed logic) it is not art.

That is an interesting approach. With respect to the cartoon, the individual says she "likes" it, not that it is or isn't art.

 

[Pieter12]

Generally, the public bases their opinion of what is art on whether they like or understand it.

 

[bunktheory65]

You have to do what you like for yourself. What good is trying to please others if it isn't your style? Just don't quit your day job.

its really the only way to make money with photography unless somehow you can sucker people into buying your "how to" guide or online "how to photograph" courses.

If you actually took the time and studied the works of many modern, since 2010 photographers and the photographs that started when the fame did, you would notice that they align very carefully with popular political theory and social trends. Nothing on the lines of "wow, thats a great photograph of a deer eating a bird". But a "hmm this photograph of a 10 year old girl crying in the emergency room after breaking a finger would make an excellent advertisement for a anti domestic violence promotion".

But at the same time, MOST people dont have a style, nor know what style is.

 

[Arthurwg]

My favorite art photographer? Eugene Atget. And he absolutely did not consider himself an artist but rather a documentarian. Still. his ideas and sensibility combine to make high art, IMHO.

 

[faberryman]

Generally, the public bases their opinion of what is art on whether they like or understand it.

I acknowledge that, but we need not be bound by their uninformed approach. Shall we just pitch aside the philosophy of art, including aesthetics?

 

[Pieter12]

its really the only way to make money with photography unless somehow you can sucker people into buying your "how to" guide or online "how to photograph" courses.

If you actually took the time and studied the works of many modern, since 2010 photographers and the photographs that started when the fame did, you would notice that they align very carefully with popular political theory and social trends. Nothing on the lines of "wow, thats a great photograph of a deer eating a bird". But a "hmm this photograph of a 10 year old girl crying in the emergency room after breaking a finger would make an excellent advertisement for a anti domestic violence promotion".

But at the same time, MOST people dont have a style, nor know what style is.

Nothing to do with art. Commerce and propaganda, maybe, but off-topic.

 

[Pieter12]

My favorite art photographer? Eugene Atget. And he absolutely did not consider himself an artist but rather a documentarian. Still. his ideas and sensibility combine to make high art, IMHO.

I am going to ruffle some feathers here, but I don't like Atget much. I find his photos (with the exception of those with people) flat and uninspiring. I think he was correct in assuming he was not an artist, but a provider of materials for artists to use as reference. Wonderful documents of an era, maybe not much else. The same goes for his greatest promoter, Berenice Abbott. Her work following his example, documenting New York City, does nothing for me.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

It's just like that old saying - art is in the eye....of the purse holder.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So you take someone who has no background or education in art or art history into a gallery to view an exhibition of, say, one of the abstract expressionists, and he says it isn't art because his three year old could do better, is he, as viewer, the arbiter of whether such abstract expressionist's work is art? How about Duchamp's urinal?

As long as the piece does something emotionally to someone , then it's art. Even if they feel it's terrible and not art, it is art because it created an emotional reaction, even though negative. That's what art is suppose to do. It has no functional purpose by itself. Art just sits there waiting to cause a reaction in people. That's why it's the viewer that makes it art not the creator. It just ego when the creator calls it art.

Just a clarification. There is also art that is functional as well like architecture, a Ferrari, a vase, crystal goblet, etc. Not only does it create an emotional reaction. You can live in it, work in it, or use it. So photos can have function such as recording history. But also create an emotional response when you look at it just as a painting may do both.

 

[faberryman]

As long as the piece does something emotionally to someone , then it's art. Even if they feel it's terrible and not art, it is art because it created an emotional reaction, even though negative. That's what art is suppose to do. It has no functional purpose by itself. Art just sits there waiting to cause a reaction in people. That's why its the viewer that makes it art not the creator. It just ego when the creator calls it art.

Just a clarification. There is also art that is functional as well like architecture, a Ferrari, a vase, crystal goblet, etc. Not only does it create an emotional reaction. You can live in it, work in it, or use it. So photos can have function such as recording history. But also create an emotional response when you look at it just as a painting may do both.

I fundamentally disagree that it is the viewer who determines whether something is art.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I fundamentally disagree that it is the viewer who determines whether something is art.

Well, certainly, I'd rather be called an artist than a mere photographer. In any case, I would consider you an artist, Frank. I've seen your photos and they're very nice. Artistic.

Actually, everyone's photos are artistic to one point or another. Some are just better than others by creating more emotional response in the viewer. So we're all artists from that standpoint. It's just better to let others call us artists. It's rather presumptuous to call ourselves artists unless you want to bump your pay grade.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does a sculptor call himself a sculptor or an artist? Does a painter call himself a painter or an artist? It's others that call him an artist. So shouldn't we call ourselves photographers?