Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

People think of photography as a routine mechanical thing they sometimes do on holiday (or at parties with their mobile phone). This is a real pity. It is a bit like regarding painting as something routine or low level because as an activity it forms part of home decorating, or because the last time you did it you were at primary school!

The range of cheap cameras with brilliant optics, the advent of digital technology, and the wide spread of image manipulation software means that all can cheaply take up the tools and create! That so few, relatively speaking, actually do much more than record they were 'there' at some holiday locale seems to me to be a real pity, and to be a direct consequence of an unwillingness to accept that creativity is not confined to horse-hair brushes and chisels, but flows from the brain and the eye!

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

They say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" for good reason. Appreciation of art in any form is highly subjective. One person's art may be another persons trash. Good photography is fine art because it reflects the photographer's way of seeing, and way of framing what he/she sees. Then the viewer must be able to interpret this, so its a two-way street. I think people trained in visual arts can appreciate other visual arts, including photography, more because they have had training in looking and seeing and trying to interpret the artists intention for framing what they see the way they do. This can also include digital photography and the manipulation of a digital image.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

Thank you! I spent a good deal of time making "art" photography. It was a money "black-hole" for me because I sold very little, but my artist friends liked it a lot! Most of it is still hanging in my studio. Report It

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

I do consider a lot of photography art. And much of it is a visual recording of one's history. A friend of mine combines the two, spending a lot of time money and effort (with a lot of creativity thrown in) to create scrapbooks for people.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

Not everyone is interested in the artistic or creative side. Photos to help your memory and to remind you of the people you have seen and know and of beautiful vistas are important and useful even if they are not artistic.

A pen and paper have been around for a long time without everyone taking up drawing after all.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

Yes, it is art period. I suffer the same prejudice in my own area of art. As a caricature artist people often think you simply draw funny pictures but there is so much to it than that!

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

pressing a button can hardly be called art..

and its a copy from something that is not created by the person taking the photo.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

hey!! some people don't even know what is this art thing. they don't even regconise drawings as art. that my friend is the reason that most people think that creativity is like something that geniuses do, and not some thing that everyone can do.

and it not only about using image manipulating software. it goes even before that, try composing your picture( that's design)

have you heard of calligraphy, it's writting as an art.

God bless,

gabe

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

To your primary query yes it is a bummer!

You seem to speak highly however of digital %26amp; computer manipulation thus allowing for creation but few do this.

Indeed the art does flow from the brain to the position of the body,the arm,hand,and the eye then to the mechanical wonderment.

I prefer less of the digital,computer,mechanical gadgets,but if I use a camera it would be a range finder or something like the manual Nikon FM3A,with this gadget at least one uses a bit more of the brain,and in fact if one develops their own can with the chemicals and or lack of some,as well as the use of light create art unlike that fabricated digital junk.

But yes I agree unfortunate it is to the world that it is not considered throughout the world as true art most public art shows whether in NY City, or Santos,Brazil one will find few if any that allow photography yet PHOTOGRAPHY in its more primitive is nothing but art,as is the precision of the working wonderment we call the camera.

Post Script what I mean by it not being considered true hands own art (even though we who also paint know that painting is done with instruments,after all we arent finger painting.), is that it is not allowed in many shows,or exhibits as many consider the use of a machine in making what they call art as non art.

There are a world of www pages that do not include photography,if you complain to the webmaster they have always told me try a photograhy site not an art site.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

I have worked as a professional photographer and I can tell you that photography is a recognized art. Universally ? I am not sure of what you mean by "Universally". The artistic part of photography occurs in how a person positions a group of shapes within a photo using composition which is an art. Using different types of film and varying exposure times creates different results which sometimes requires an artistic approach to know what results you get to express your photo that could be just a snap shot with minimal effort on creativeness. There is the other spectrum that says you will get a better photo with a Hasselblad than a disposeable camera bought at Wal-Mart. This is where a photo may seem artistic when it is because of using more expensive equipment and technique that a person with big bucks can take a better more artistic photo than a cheap point and shoot camera. Does equipment advantages equal more artistic ability? This grey area of photography lends to the idea that it is more science and technique than artistic ability. Do the things you are photographing make the photo artistic? Where exactly does the art occur? Most art is created from hands on materials whereas in photography we rely on material selection, equipment, subject matter but nothing is really touched or created in regards to the film or digital image which is created by science regardless of what we take a photo of. Artistic people do own cameras and do create photographs that seem artistic but it is science with an illusion of artistic abilites that are really composed of operating equipment made by some company. Does a strip miner with a steam shovel render him an artist because he digs a hole in a fashionable way? Would this make a steam shovel operator an artist. Does defecating in an artistic manner make art? Or peeing in the snow writing your name?

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

But it is!!!! Check out work by Nan Goldin, for example. Beautiful images. And the Magnum crowd ...

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

Not true.

There are photographs in most of the world's top art galleries. Most well-respected artists take art-photographers seriously.

I also believe that the popularity of photography, the cheapness of the cameras, the brilliance of the optics, or the ability to manipulate images, is completely irrelevant to this very old and tired discussion.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

If you look in the "Discover" section you will find that questions like this one have been asked 206 times already, on Yahoo! Answers.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

I agree and yet disagree with your statement. It is one of the most universally accepted forms of art in the world today. In households anywhere there are photographs, in magazines, in books, in newspapaers, in personal albums etc etc. It is a form of art many of us express in a way that appeals to us. My photographs tend to be more dramatic than my friends because I try to capture the essence of an occasion rather than do a headcount, but hey thats why its art. I agree with you because in the main people do just that 'headcount' and make sure everyone was in the shot.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

I see three types of photography.

First, there is the snap shot taker, the man with the digital camera that just wants to record his son riding on a pony. Christmas, Easter, birthdays, etc are his main forte. I have a brother in law that brings a damned digital camera to my house and spends all day snapping pictures, that bothers the devil out of me, I don't like that and it does not fit within the guidelines of the type of day that I wanted.

Second, there is the rote photography work, the commercial portrait photographer who may go on location to shoot events, but more often stands there, puts a baby in an intesting position, and starts taking photographs. I am not saying that he is not an artist. This field would include the most boring aspect of photography, weddings, which again, are rote - if you have shot one, you can shoot them all.

Then there is the artistic photographer and he can take pictures of about anything, but more or less he specializes in things such as landscapes. Photoshop and the myriad of other computer programs can help him adjust the pictures, but in reality, he can do what he wants without it. I don't like taking pictures of people and I don't like flash. I relegate my time to natural things and find myself often down a mountain side taking pictures of water falls under natural conditions. I use filters if I want, but I really like things au naturale.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

I think that you might be asking a mixed question here-on the one hand you are stating that photography is a tool which could be used by all to create art-and not just a visual record, and on the other you seem to be unsure-or to regard photography as not being accepted as a creative art. I don閳ユ獩 know if I got that confused-but it seems to me that many art forms are like that-drawings, sketching and paintings could be created by anyone-and are-some very badly-which make it to the top and in galleries, and some highly skilled works which do not become famous unless the artist has died. The thing is-its all subject to trends, fashions, the most recent 'darling' and those works are respected for sheer technical brilliance and a spark of something else-composition, lighting, flow. It could be argued that it should also be the same for photographs-if this is what you mean-that it is to be respected as an art form-which it is-and has been for many years-but perhaps not as much as paintings or sculptures, and the fact remains that it is mechanical-and frequently used to record work-or as an aid to a project. There have been many fine art exhibitions of photographs-recording certain subjects. Unlike paintings and other art forms, photography is a little more difficult to classify, and because of this it is best if the person has a specific aim-theme-goal-idea or mood in mind for the photographs-perhaps it is the motive or purpose behind it which would make it art. In 'Photography and the body' (1995) by John Pultz, photography is described as "the most modern of all media in the visual arts" linked with modernism and enlightenment. It閳ユ獨 a fantastic book-and all of the pieces in it are considered art-and are powerful meaningful images.

Isn't it a shame that photography is not universally recognised as an Art?

I feel pretty daunted by how many serious and intelligent answers you've already had, but I'm going to take a risk.

I've been a landscape photographer (as a hobby, I mean) for many years. I use professional grade equipment, have wandered around the coasts of Spain and the ancient cities of Malta, composed thousands of photos, experimented with many films, lenses, etc., and sometimes loved the results. But I've become tired of people saying that photography is an art. It's a craft. It depends upon having an eye for beauty (colour or figure of form or whatever) and the requisite technical knowledge of the equipment and the photographic process. In this respect, it is indeed like making very fine furniture or decorating a room beautifully. The products of an artist - good or bad, that's the point - depend purely upon his or her unique mental abilities (to produce a good-or-bad painting or a poem), not his or her ability to appreciate something interesting or beautiful and capture it using equipment. Think about it for a moment. Raphael was an artist of genius. Ansel Adams was a craftsman of genius.