I dont read through these threads that often but I must admit that every time I come upon one in which the discussion is about whether photography is art or not, I am always amazed. There seems to be much debate on this subject and I, like everyone else, have an opinion. I dont mean to rehash what has already been said or written but bear with me. First I would like to pose a question:

Let us say the Almighty convenes a special counsel to determine the answer to this very question and after much debate it is finally determined that photography, in any way, shape or form, is not art. This ruling would affect the work done by every well-known photographer and also the average amateur. In fact every photograph ever taken.

Would this change your view of photography? Would you still love it? Would you still get excited whenever you would see what you consider to be a great photograph the way you did when photography first caught your attention?

I can only answer that for myself and I tell you it would not change a thing for me. Whether it is an art or not has never entered the equation. I love the craft and every step that goes into making a photograph. Hell, I love it all!!

For those of you who practice this medium and actually care about whether it is art or not, I feel for you. I would hate to know I had something as silly as that hanging over my head. I realize there are people who make their living by selling their photographs, and this may matter to them. But when I buy a photograph from a gallery or studio it isnt because I think it is art, it is because I like it. No other reason.

Any opinions???????????

-- Frankie (franks@netdoor.com), March 13, 2000

Answers

There is not much to add to this, except maybe the question WHY this question keeps surfacing time and again, and why photographers often feel they have to defend themselves.

To me, there can hardly be any doubt that photography CAN be an art form. This doesn't make each and every photo ever taken a work of art.

The ease with which Dick Miller makes his vacation snapshots, although he is a complete failure when it somes to any kind of skill, is often given as a reason why photography cannot be an art. So what about some modern paintings where, at least for an ignorant person like me, skill is more than hard to see? What is "art" anyway?

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), March 14, 2000.

In any given medium this argument can be applied be it photography, painting, sculpture, woodworking, architecture, whatever. There are those who may be masters of technical skills in any given area, which makes them craftsmen, but their work lacks inspiration, or that originality which makes it art. Then there's all the stuff that lies in between, and all the varying opinions as to what is and isn't art. I'm not sure where I'm going with this except to say this isn't an issue that is specific to just photography, but a very universal conundrum that can be applied to many disciplines.

-- Paul Swenson (paulphoto@humboldt1.com), March 14, 2000.

Your 4th paragraph sums it up for me...

"I can only answer that for myself and I tell you it would not change a thing for me. Whether it is an art or not has never entered the equation. I love the craft and every step that goes into making a photograph. Hell, I love it all!!"

worth repeating I say!

I will add that I hope some of my pictures are 'better' (no, I should say, 'not classed as') than 'snapshots' but that's another whole area of debate!

Cheers, Nige

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), March 14, 2000.

Mike Johnston, writing in the late, great Camera & Darkroom magazine gave the best answer I've heard so far: "Photography is not art, but some photographers are artists."

The point is that photography is a medium. Likewise, painting, sculpture, etc., are not arts, they are media. When done at a high level of workmanship, they are crafts, and when done by an artist, they are art.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 14, 2000.

Anybody's wrists ever get to feelin' sorta funny when you get into the mood for takin' some pictures?

-- John L. Blue (bluescreek@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.

Ughhh. The people who spend a great deal of time chewing the question, "is photography art or not?" are, in my experience, not great photographers. Did Weston, Adams, or Strand spend much time contemplating this question? Great photographers are concerned with the creation of great photographs -- the viewers may decide for themselves if the work is Art or not. And in my opinion, their opinion should be judged on the work they have done in the medium.

The reason this question plagues photography is this: Not everyone can go outside and paint a landscape, except, perhaps, in a most primitive way. The photographic process, however, has been so simplified that any simpleton may snap a photograph with his disposable camera and, in his mind, engages the photographic medium.

Now, any person who has explored the process in depth would agree that the result of such a snapshot is a jape when compared to the work of, say, Adams. But, whenever there are great numbers of people doing anything; that thing naturally is cheapened, in the minds of the masses, and treated as something anyone can do.

Whom can we thank for the decent of the photographic process from the hands of few skilled persons to the realm of the vulgar? The history of the decent is too long to discuss in depth. But there are some major points worth mentioning: Kodaks marketing of the Brownie, The invention of the 35mm camera and later the medium format cameras, The invention of the Polaroid camera and film, the 110 format camera and the despicable throw-away cameras.

The fact is, great photographers are not concerned with the state of the Art of photography; they are concerned with the creation of the best work they are capable of.

Jason Kefover

-- Jason Kefover (jkefover@york.tec.sc.us), May 08, 2000.