stanperry Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

I respectfully disagree. I am a painter, primarily still life's in oil. What you describe is the medium, not the art. A painter applies paint to a canvas, which is much less complicated (in equivalent terms of the skill level of the painter/photographer) There are no f stops, shutter speeds, ISO settings, exposure concerns of any sort, no choices to be made in focusing, no obstacles to overcome in terms of backgrounds, etc. The art is choosing the subject, adjusting color tones, choosing light sources and point of view, composition of the piece, etc. if I choose a bad subject or compose it poorly it's not art, it's just gooey oil paint on canvas waiting 3 months to dry. In terms of oil painting, I'm not stuck with an ugly subject (I can turn my neighbor lady into an exotic Asian siren), I can create lighting, and I almost always use a background that doesn't exist. These can be seen on one hand as part of the creative process, but it's also quite dishonest. The camera requires me to be more selective in my subject and composition, and the technical challenges of lighting, background, camera settings, etc., are totally critical and broad in terms of selection/combination. The art is recognizing what to paint/photograph, composing the piece attractively, and in telling the story that the picture represents. The medium one chooses to use is irrelevant. The camera forces me to be incredibly honest in terms of the final product. In mho the art of photography is much more demanding and challenging, and quite capable of telling the story.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Well, I guess you are right - but a painter uses oil based paints or at least paints of some kind, applies them with a brush usually made of some type of hair onto a surface of some type - canvas, cloth, plastic, or whatever and if they screw up they can then paint over (any different than photoshop?) and redo. Sometimes they just throw the entire paint can on the canvas and call it art. Where then is the difference?

Photocraig

To return to the OP's query, I never fail to be amazed at what a child companion with (or without) a simple camera finds fascinating. They're not jaded by the constant repetition of mundane distraction and can watch a bug for hours, or a tadpole pond, or how a dandelion seed pod is translucent and waves in the slightest wind. And their knee high viewpoint yields a completely different perspective to their image captures than the upright stature of their adult companions.

The old saying on the Eagle Claw Fish Hooks package: "Take a boy (or girl) fishing today" is acutely germaine for photography. An old phone will do, and they'll see stuff you forgot exists. And the girls see different stuff than the boys! But don't tell anybody I said that!

It is a very cool experience, especially for grandma's and grandpa's.
C
C

rockdog Loc: Berkeley, Ca.

This is one of the most coherent and succinct statements on the subject of "is photography art?" that I have seen on this forum. That question has much to do with the distinction between medium and message or process and product, and is always about intention. I like your thoughts about the restrictive demands of photography.

stanperry Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

Thank you. I struggled with the "is photography art?" for quite a while. In the final analysis, I realized that my "painter" persona simply wanted to be "superior". It was ego. The reality is quite simple to me now. The product is the only gauge that determines what art is. The media, the framing, the place you hang it on the wall.....are irrelevant. A sculptor can weld hunks of metal together, but if the end product doesn't tell his story or give you a different perspective or make you look at it over and over, it's just junk that's been welded. Thanks for the kind remarks.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

How many of these great pictures you see are not "embellished"? "An image created as art is art from the very moment." That's a lot like; I think therefore I am. The battle rages.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

What constitutes "embellishment" and does it matter? In photojournalism the manipulation of photographs is unethical because it distorts the truth. Photojournalism is expected to portray the truth of an event. However, in art it doesn't matter. William Eggleston's photographs are pretty much straight photography however, Jerry Uelsmanns photographs have been constructed. Both photographers images are art.

Furthermore a photograph is a separate entity from reality. It goes back to Magritte's, The Treachery of Images. The painting of a pipe is not a pipe but is a painting of a pipe. So often with photographs we treat the photograph as if is the same as the object that was photographed. However, it isn't and never can be.

The question of what it looked like vs what the final work looks like is a question that is rarely ever asked of painters. Given that a photograph is not reality, the notion of changing reality through staging photographs or "post-processing/ manipulation" is a moot point for artists. Only the final image, its aesthetic values and the concepts conveyed matter.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Picasso, supposedly told by a patron that the portrait of the man's wife didn’t exactly look like the wallet photo he had, responded, "Awfully small, isn’t she!"

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Art has always been rather difficult to define. Several philosophers and critics have attempted to define it.


Here are some of their essays and theories about art and aesthetics

Emmanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/section3/

Robert J. Yanal, Danto and George Dickey, Institutional Theory of Art: https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/the-institutional-theory-of-art/

John Dewey, Art as Experience: https://burnaway.org/feature/theory-in-studio-john-dewey-champion-of-art-as-experience/

Clement Greenberg, Kitsch and the Avant Garde, https://sites.psu.edu/1314passion/2014/02/06/clement-greenberg-avant-garde-and-kitsch-analysis/

tallshooter

I know, I was just driving down the road.

(Download)

Diocletian

End product is a product of someone's imagination, which is art.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

This is a really stupid comment. I am an artist. I use a camera. The prints I make prints are my works of art. I create them and sell them as work of art. They are my art, just as a painting is a painters art. Just as a cake is a bakers art. "Photography is not art." This doesn't even make sense. I think this post was just to get peoples ire up, and it worked. Stupid comment.
...Cam

traderjohn Loc: New York City

I don't think so. Perhaps a figment of one's imagination.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

If you need to think you are an "artist" have at it. In reality, you take pictures and manipulate them with various electronic software programs. Perhaps the real artist is the developer of the software program that allows you your illusions.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

So by that logic the people at Ilford are the artists because they created the contrast filters, chemicals and multi-contrast paper that I use in the darkroom. I guess I do deserve a little credit though since I created my dodging wands and burning cards.

Tools and software allow us to do things, but the creativity to apply them to visually express our vision comes from the human mind.