Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

I concur.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It is clearly important to many people, though it might not be to some, including you.


In fact the the very first museum exhibition of photograph was in 1858, roughly 35 years after it was essentially "invented". The South Kensington Museum in England showed 1009 photographs from England and France.

Note that the Museum of Modern Art in NYC was founded in late 1929, and the first director was Alfred Barr Jr., who almost immediately set up various departments including one for photography. In 1935 he hired Beaumont Newhall as Curator of Photography.

It seems that photography has been in art museums for a very long time.


That does not exclude them from being art though. Before photography the same work was done by sketch artists or painters. Just because the intended use is documentary or science does not mean the work is not art.

We might use as an example any of the many fine books that have been published about birds, for biologists. Fabulous drawings and photographs, all meant strictly for science as documentation.


Both are very useful topics of discussion. Some enjoy one or the other, and some have an interest in both.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

This is a significant distinction to those of us that feel that some photography is not art, regardless of its technical merit, aesthetic quality or emotional appeal.

Pictures of the earth from the moon are technically excellent, very interesting and attractive. Did the photographer intend to create an object of art? I don't think so, and I don't think NASA spent all of that money to promote art.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I doubt that your dental x-rays or images from someone's colonoscopy would be considered art by any stretch of the imagination - at least for most of us.

But if you consider that all photography is art, without exception, and you will tolerate no dissent, why are we even having this discussion?

Why join this thread only to put down anyone who disagrees with your view? Or was that your intent?

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Why do we need to draw the line? What is the purpose of doing that?

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Not exactly. There are two definitions for the word.

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

Photography is most certainly a "branch of creative activity."

However, not all photographs are an "expression of human creative skill and imagination producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I agree. That is the question I am asking here.


Yes. Well said.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I think the discussion is productive and of value. "Agreeing to disagree" simply puts a stop to the exploration of the topic. I am glad to see both and each of the debaters contributing to this thread. If we all agreed about everything, there would be no point in communication at all, and if we "agree to disagree" and stop discussing the topic, exploring the disagreement, we are limiting the range of discussion to only that which carries no possible element of controversy.

One thought that occurs to me reading the many excellent posts on the thread is that we focus on the product and not the creator. Again, I think this is a function of the modern cultural context that holds anything and everything as a commodity.

To an extent the craftsperson is taking the safe route, the tried and true path, while the artist is taking risks. While we admire excellent craftsmanship, I would say that it is the artist that is more vulnerable. Ergo, I think that it is important to recognize and support the artist, the one attempting to travel the less worn path, attempting to communicate something that carries unique and powerful meaning and significance. The artist is not superior to the craftsperson, but rather different in intention and approach. However, the artist is more rare and more vulnerable.

Mike

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Opinions of the heart! S-

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Compare those definitions, which are from the Oxford Dictionary, to this one from Merriam-Webster,
There is little doubt they are both saying exactly the same thing; but you are interpreting the definition you cite in a way that the Merriam-Webster definition has specifically been constructed to reject.

Your first definition is structured as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", plus some typical examples. The second definition is "the various branches of creative activity" plus examples.

The examples are not meant to be exclusive, just representative. You are interpreting them as exclusive. We cannot use any definition that is exclusive. Such a definition does not mean that everything excluded is not also defined as art in another way, but merely means it isn't defined in this particular way. Hence even if your interpretation were correct (and it is not), it would not mean a photograph is not art.

If we look at several dictionaries we see the common thread in all of them. Anything that is the product of human creativity is art. That is particularly so if it was has any value at all as something pleasing or beautiful. Some dictionaries provide a separate definition that specifically includes photography. The point is that if you see a way to interpret any one definition to exclude photography, look again because that is not what it really means.

Here are some examples that demonstrate, as a whole, the point of just how broad the definition actually is.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Yes, the word has several uses and meanings. I went to the dictionary only because others had, and of course I chose the meaning that supported my point. That was my intention.

If all things humans produce are art, then the question "is this art?" becomes meaningless.

Mike

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

And in fact is is meaningless!

But you cannot go to a dictionary and simply pick out a definition that supports your instant point. The purpose should be to find out what the word means to people using it. The most inclusive meaning is appropriate. By using an exclusive definition you are engaged in playing "word games" by twisting what someone else has said to mean other than what they wanted to say. The purpose should be to understand what they are saying.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Yes, if we are using the word "art" to mean anything anyone does with skill, then the word still has meaning, but the question "is this art?" no longer does.

The dictionary reflects usage, it does not dictate usage. Of course I select the words that convey my meaning. We all do that all the time. I checked the dictionary to make sure that my use of the word reflects common usage, so as to communicate clearly.

If I were to use the word "rule" as a noun in its meaning of "a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct," for example were I to say "the rule here is that you do not send mass private messages to multiple users," I am not obligated to include somehow its use as a verb meaning "exercise ultimate power or authority over." That would not be a matter of "simply picking out a definition that supports my instant point," it would be proper usage for the purpose of clear communication.

I merely explained the meaning I was using, which is a common way to use it, as reflected in the definition I cited.

In any case, the argument is not over the word, rather it is about the reality the word is used to indicate. We should not confuse the word with the thing.

Mike

Shutter Bugger

We do not need to draw "a line".

But you have little choice in the matter, you cant
help yourself from drawing a line because if you feel
a colonoscopy photo is not art, you have drawn a line.

I find where we draw that line very interesting indeed.

For example a photographers intention may be
purely documentary when he creates a photo for a text book, a repair manual for example.

However that same photographer my create an artistic image for the text book just to make the text book a more enjoyable learning experience.

Art ?

(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I don't think such a photograph is ever less than art, and that is absolutely intentional on the part of everyone participating in the process, starting with whoever hires the photographer.

Not only is it always designed from the start to make the book more enjoyable, it is virtually guaranteed that one or more persons is at some point detailed with the selection process. This photo instead of that photo... and bingo that defines the one selected as art by any definition.