We've have an interesting discussion on the subject the last few days. Hopefully, that's provided an opportunity for people to clarify their thoughts. So let's see where we collectively stand. Can photography be art? The question is not is all photography art. Define art anyway you please or the purpose of this thread.
Let us know where you come down on this issue in the poll (I hope I can figure out how to add a poll to this post).
You need the 'Sometimes' option box, or the 'Can photography be garbage' question...
I said above: "The question is not is all photography art." So a yes answer allows for the possibility that some photography is not art.
"Can photography be garbage?" is, I think, a question about the quality of the photography. To me, that is orthogonal to the issue of whether photography can be art. There is good art and bad art. There is art that some folks would call garbage, and there is art that some people would say is not garbage.
Yes, photography can be art.
Even I said yes because of the wording, "can" it be" because the photographer could have made the scene (as is commonly done for movies, etc.).
Photography can be art or it can be record shots and anything in between. Record shots are not art, but after that fill your boots
Even record shots can be art. Why not?
Art or, to distinguish from crafts, fine art: creative, often innovative, endeavor with the intent to convey aesthetic, emotional, and or intellectual content.
That is my only interest in photography, well almost. On occasion, I might do some record shots as reminders of places/events I have visited. Those records I keep to myself.
For me, a "record" shot can be technically good, well crafted but aside from the memories it lacks intent and artistic vision. The subject matter might be beautiful but the photographer merely recorded this and the creative aspect is lacking. It would be like taking a picture of someone else's art work.
Because a record shot is simply that. It records a facsimile of what’s in front of you. Like a photocopy. As soon as the photographer starts to put a spin on the reality in front of them it has the potential to wander into the realms of being art. Frankly this should be beyond obvious to any photographer
It's obvious to me that a shot can be a record and also art.
Walker Evans. Dorothea Lange. August Sander. Robert Frank. Eugene Richards.
Each to his own, there is no definition. But personally I strongly disagree with you.
If a photographer takes a bad picture and shows it to people is it garbage? If that photographer then prints and crumples it, puts it in a waste basket and submits it to a gallery has it then become art?
Art is a devious thing.
Art, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder
I can look at what is presented as Art in various mediums, from Old Masters, through to contemporary art. Some I will think is just utter garbage, others will absolutely fascinate and delight me. I will agree and disagree on what good art is, but I would absolutely agree that Photography, along with Painting, Installations, Sculptures are all, or can be art.
I may or may not like a particular piece, but that is my perspective, and others will disagree with me, which is absolutely fine by me
Same here Andy. I know art when I see it. There is no hard rule. Well said.
Danny.
W. Eugene Smith, Robert Capa, Robert Adams, Alfred Eisenstaedt,...
from what ive seen these days every person that buys a dslr thinks they are professionals. poll shows the same. so now they call themselves artists. the most hilarious email i received the other day from our local photography club was come to the next meeting and see all the artist show there work. the club keeps coming last in every interclub comp 😂