Photography as Art

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

So a couple of years ago I developed a series of lectures on Photography and Art (a deceased wife was an art consultant to several successful painters and sculptures), and I've been thinking about how knowledge about how photography came to be an art and how that can help one become a "better" photographer. I have quite a few books on photography but there are mostly on the history or images done by the 30-60's "great" photographers. I think how one views images and how they can change our perceptions of what it is that makes an image worth viewing is a topic that can lead to new understanding of photography art. Perception and Reflect are what drives my love of photography, I have done both photography and film/video professionally and for a hobby. As much as I like color, B&W will for me, always be the heart of art photography. If you like to join an ongoing discussion of Photography and Art, Let do it here.

 

[rayvonn]

I’d have to understand and reach agreement on what art is before embarking on this discussion, still not sure about that even now.

 

[TNcasual]

Simon's Utak just did a video on this recently:

 

[OCBeyer]

I recently picked up (Kindle sample) "Photography A Cultural History" by Mary Werner Marien and have read a couple of chapters. It's a great big tome, so we'll see how far I get. In it she explains the beginnings of photography and says that initially the (many) inventors of it's various more modern forms (early to late 1800s) saw it primarily as a tool for science and government, helping with the in depth analysis of natural artifacts, or used extensively in anthropology, or with preserving documents. Some of its earliest proponents found financial success in promoting it as novelty. But it wasn't long until some, seeing the captured beauty of nature, began to experiment with techniques and forms that would mimic traditional art work. One doesn't need to actually strive to create "art" with the camera, it can be happenstance, which is what happened with earlier (and today's) scientific photography.

We had a somewhat related discussion on the Challenge #76 forum over whether or a not photographer should explain his art or should it be left entirely to the imagination of the viewer.

Nice discussion idea. But I think Rayvon's question should be addressed but I doubt it can be successfully, or fully, answered.

 

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

I guess it will depend on how your view museum curators, Historians (and PHD's who study the arts), and gallery owners. I have had a great amount of interactions with the first two and have read quite a lot of "how photography became accept as art books (will discuss a few later). Each person has his/her own personal view on what is art, those that control things accepted as art (curators and historians) believe the issue was resolved in the early to middle 20th century. So, to me the question becomes what is art to an individual and what is art for those who controls societies working definition of art. More on this when I have a little time.

 

[OCBeyer]

If each person has their own view of what art is (and I agree) then we end up with this (thank God!)

 

[Rick Waldroup]

It depends on the artist and the use of photography as a tool. To me, two of the greatest artists of our generation are Cindy Sherman and Marie Cosindas. Sherman uses photography as a tool for bringing her unique vision to life. Her preparation for the pieces that she creates is legendary and her artwork is actually breath-taking to witness in person. I was fortunate enough to attend her last big exhibition and her creativity and vision really does not have that much to do with actual photography itself, but that is the medium she used to bring her vision to a solid form.

Marie Cosindas was a true pioneer of the early days of color Polaroid film. I have seen some of work in person, as well, and her subtle use of color, her supreme control of composition, created artwork that will stand the test of time.

So, what is photographic art? A lot of what passes today for photographic art, is in my mind, nothing more than calendar photography, in the vein of the American painter, Thomas Kinkade. Was Robert Frank an artist or just a documentary photographer? Or both? What about Arbus? What about Warhol? One of my favorite artists is Edward Hopper, who was not a photographer, but his paintings have inspired countless photographers, including myself. When does the human factor kick in? Marc Riboud, the great French photojournalist, was as much an artist as he was a photojournalist. His compositions of documentary events are simply beautiful.

After reading what I just wrote, it doesn't make much sense, does it? Art is like that. It inspires, it fascinates, and it entertains us. In the end, I am not sure what art is, but if something makes me stand in awe of its creation, if it makes me think, and if it captures my imagination, that is art to me.

 

[OzPhotoNut]

To me, true art is an all round effort. It's a lifestyle, a burning desire to be better, it requires sacrifice. Most importantly, art is beauty.

One of the ultimate displays of art in my eyes are the great sports people.

 

[agentlossing]

There are some people who spend a ton of time planning, preparing, arranging, lighting, posing, etc. their photographs, so there may be some art inherent in that process, especially in coming up with a complex vision and executing it. Or there is photographer Dan Winters, who spend extensive time fabricating his backdrops and similar environments for portraits, which could be seen as part art, part craftsman. I don't do any of that at all. In fact, the most prep that goes into my shooting beforehand tends to be for photos of gear that I'm putting on the internet to sell!

Since I mainly shoot street photography, landscapes, and a whole lot of variations on those, plus some which could be approaching documentary and snapshot genres, there's not a vision that's being constructed or executed. Maybe a vague template of a vision, but nothing definite, and I don't have control over whether I have subjects, backgrounds, settings or events to realize that template.

Of course we might not all agree on whether "vision" in the way that I'm framing it is necessary to "art." All of these terms will forever be too nebulous to make sense. But, that aside, I consider that for the kind of photography I shoot, the only real part which could be "art" is the selection and curation of my photos. This has been my mentality for some time now; though I don't have very concrete "projects" I still consider my work to be building towards them. My art is in the cutting and paring away of all the dross which is the result of my shooting, and the arrangement of things that seem to belong to other things.

 

[OCBeyer]

There are some people who spend a ton of time planning, preparing, arranging, lighting, posing, etc. their photographs, so there may be some art inherent in that process, especially in coming up with a complex vision and executing it. Or there is photographer Dan Winters, who spend extensive time fabricating his backdrops and similar environments for portraits, which could be seen as part art, part craftsman. I don't do any of that at all. In fact, the most prep that goes into my shooting beforehand tends to be for photos of gear that I'm putting on the internet to sell!

Since I mainly shoot street photography, landscapes, and a whole lot of variations on those, plus some which could be approaching documentary and snapshot genres, there's not a vision that's being constructed or executed. Maybe a vague template of a vision, but nothing definite, and I don't have control over whether I have subjects, backgrounds, settings or events to realize that template.

Of course we might not all agree on whether "vision" in the way that I'm framing it is necessary to "art." All of these terms will forever be too nebulous to make sense. But, that aside, I consider that for the kind of photography I shoot, the only real part which could be "art" is the selection and curation of my photos. This has been my mentality for some time now; though I don't have very concrete "projects" I still consider my work to be building towards them. My art is in the cutting and paring away of all the dross which is the result of my shooting, and the arrangement of things that seem to belong to other things.

Agreed, especially with street. But what about composition? Is there not an art to that too? Or isn't there an artistic sensibility in seeing things worth capturing with a camera that others might completely overlook? I know of painters who first photograph the scene before they stand in front of the canvas

I wonder if photography has artistic commonality with other disciplines like innovative architecture or interior design, even more pedestrian endeavors like food presentation (which I'm familiar with). They can require an artistic eye.

 

[OCBeyer]

I just came across this. Might have some pertinence.

Canon v Nikon v Sony. Forget That and Choose Your Side in This More Important Argument Instead.

The marketing battle between the big camera manufacturers is irrelevant. A far older and more important disagreement that has raged since the dawn of our art is as relevant today as ever. Where do you stand? Let’s face it, they all make good cameras. Yes, some duff models come out occasionally, but at least a design flaw that causes a camera to overheat or fall apart is probably not life-threatening; it’s just a camera, not a plane or a self-driving car.

fstoppers.com

 

[TNcasual]

This topic is always interesting to me. Because I do photography. I also "do art." And my medium for that art is light and how the camera sees it. I know my abstractions don't appeal to a very wide audience, but I have had my own show in a real art space, and I did sell some pieces. Does that make my creations "art?"

 

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

How many of you are acquainted with the Aperture book series Master of Photography? Perhaps the lessor known photographers covered were Manuel Bravo and Tina Modotti are among my favorites. Modotti might have been known only as a consort of Weston until a box of her images was found in an old barn in Oregon. I will admit that for me, B&W is the soul of photography and thus I am drawn to what I guess we could call the old masters from the 20th century. For me an image has to have the "bones" to be a B&W (even if shot in color), for it to be art to me. In previous work lives, I've used also of camera, large format to 35mm. Most of the stuff I did commercially were color, but I also did B&W prints in the darkroom to check for "bones". If you remember the Time Life series on Photography, I was interviewed for about six hours on various photography issues. I miss the feel of the darkroom, but I love the performance of Photoshop for my finish images. I've had two seminal moments in art. One was the first time I saw a real Rembrandt and when I saw Hernandez in a real Adams print. Each one of those images pushed me farther down the road and loving, seeing, and sensing this thing called art. I've traveled maybe 20 times to the SW (Arz, Nev, S. Cal), to capture landscapes which I like to focus on dark vs light, shape and forms. And I like to think if any of my work is "art", it is because of the giants on whose shoulders I have stood. Ever since I got my first cameras (an Agfa optima and a Koda 8mm video when I was in the 6 grade), I've been lucky enough to do both still and motion images (even when I owned the company). I don't think we can define art here, but I hope as the conversation continues each one of us gets a better idea of what art is and how it impacts us. At 75 (my folks both lived well into their 90's), I am, hopefully, still learning and pushing my own boundaries of concepts or art and how where my images belong. Good night.

 

[Deb]

How many of you are acquainted with the Aperture book series Master of Photography? Perhaps the lessor known photographers covered were Manuel Bravo and Tina Modotti are among my favorites. Modotti might have been known only as a consort of Weston until a box of her images was found in an old barn in Oregon. I will admit that for me, B&W is the soul of photography and thus I am drawn to what I guess we could call the old masters from the 20th century. For me an image has to have the "bones" to be a B&W (even if shot in color), for it to be art to me. In previous work lives, I've used also of camera, large format to 35mm. Most of the stuff I did commercially were color, but I also did B&W prints in the darkroom to check for "bones". If you remember the Time Life series on Photography, I was interviewed for about six hours on various photography issues. I miss the feel of the darkroom, but I love the performance of Photoshop for my finish images. I've had two seminal moments in art. One was the first time I saw a real Rembrandt and when I saw Hernandez in a real Adams print. Each one of those images pushed me farther down the road and loving, seeing, and sensing this thing called art. I've traveled maybe 20 times to the SW (Arz, Nev, S. Cal), to capture landscapes which I like to focus on dark vs light, shape and forms. And I like to think if any of my work is "art", it is because of the giants on whose shoulders I have stood. Ever since I got my first cameras (an Agfa optima and a Koda 8mm video when I was in the 6 grade), I've been lucky enough to do both still and motion images (even when I owned the company). I don't think we can define art here, but I hope as the conversation continues each one of us gets a better idea of what art is and how it impacts us. At 75 (my folks both lived well into their 90's), I am, hopefully, still learning and pushing my own boundaries of concepts or art and how where my images belong. Good night.

I still have that Time Life series... packed away somewhere...

 

[IanE]

I’d have to understand and reach agreement on what art is before embarking on this discussion, still not sure about that even now.

ChatGPT's take on the question "What is art?":

Art is a broad and multifaceted concept that encompasses various forms of creative expression, including visual arts (such as painting, sculpture, and photography), performing arts (like dance, theater, and music), literature, and even newer mediums like digital art or installations. It is often understood as a way for individuals to communicate emotions, ideas, or experiences, offering a means of personal expression or cultural commentary.

While there is no single definition of art, it is generally seen as something that evokes thought, emotion, or aesthetic pleasure, and it often challenges the norms, exploring new ways of seeing the world or addressing complex themes. Art can be deeply personal, political, abstract, or representational, and its meaning can vary depending on the viewer’s perspective and the context in which it is experienced.

Ultimately, art has the power to move, provoke, inspire, and reflect the complexities of human experience.

 

[wee-pics]

My first encounter of photography as an art were the photos of Andreas Feininger, the son of the famous Bauhaus painter Lyonel Feininger. Many others followed convincing me that photography can be more than realistic, it can be art in the tradition of the great painters.

 

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

For me, one of the better books that lays out the history between art and photography and the art world fought and then accepted photography as art is:
"

Arron Scharef Photography and art

Aaron Scharf was an American-born British art historian who made significant contributions to the history of photography. He explored the connections between painting and photography, uncovering how artists used photography for reference and how photographers with artistic aspirations referred to painting in their work. His book "Art and Photography" is a well-known publication that delves into these topics"

I've read this book a few times and believe that it is well thought out as a basis for the argument of "is photography art" and it came to be used as a standard reference for researchers on the subject. It is not that one photo is art and another is not. From my reading (which fits with my perception of issue before I read the book), fear of something that is new and appears to endanger the skills needed as well as has to potential to impact markets (photography killed miniature portraits pretty quickly according to Scharef). There is art I like, and art I don't like, pretty much a twin of reviewing photographic images (which now are "officially art"), but it is (in my opinion) up to the viewer to determine for his/herself what is art. Intellectual and visual interest are two things I use to make that judgement.

 

[ShipleyNW]

Is this thread about art appreciation, recognizing art after the fact? Or is it about using a camera to create art?

Every time I go out, I strive for art. I'm looking to stretch my vision, challenge my viewers, stand apart from everything else out there, even just a little bit.

I fail pretty much every time. Art ain't easy. If it gets too easy, they move the line and make it hard again. Art has to be risky and failure can be epic.

So I made a deal with myself. Strive for art, every time, but it's OK to settle for craftsmanship, as long as that's the floor. That's something I can control, every time. And in those rare instances where I make something approaching art, it's always a well-crafted image combined with a little bit of vision. But day to day, in the deluge of pictures we see, craftmanship my not stand apart, but it does stand out somewhat.

Strive for art, settle for craftsmanship.

 

[John King]

Art ranges from the primitives to the da Vincis and Michelangelos of this world.

In my photography, I strive to achieve competence, which greatly enhances the chance of producing something "artistic", IMHO.