Pacific Northwest Images

Before we can answer the question “is photography art” we must first ask “what is art”. Webster’s has the following to say about art:

Noun

1. The products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art".

2. The creation of beautiful or significant things; "a good example of modern art": "I was never any good at art".

3. A superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it’s quite an art".

4. Photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book".

Hey, look at that! Webster’s at least believes that photography is art.

In the early days of photography artists of the time hated photography. Photography represented a medium that could accurately and quickly capture an image that would take a painter a very long time to capture. Can photography be discarded as art simply on the basis ofthe effort it takes to “snap” a picture? Because of photography’s mostly “mechanical process” is it less of an art medium?

If painting is somehow more art than photography because it is created by hand then does that mean that a police sketch is then to be considered art?

What if between the time a photographer first visualizes an image, waits (sometimes for a season to past) for the right light, composes the image, determines the best exposure needed to realize the vision, through processing, image manipulation, proof printing, and final printing the photographer spends months? Does that now make that photograph a work of art?

There are so many reasons for photography that we can’t simply say “all photography is art” just like we can’t say “all painting is art”. Photography can be art if the intent is there. Is a photographic image art if it inspires emotion, inspiration, or passion when someone looks at it? It could be. But when I look at a Christmas snapshot of one of my children, I feel emotions and that doesn’t make them art (at least to others).

The utilitarian use of photography has almost pushed the idea of photography as art out of most people’s minds. With digital equipment becoming prevalent, I see more and more technicians creating images and not many artists. The technology of the digital age is amazing stuff and it attracts amazingly technologically focused individuals. Individuals striving for that edge-to-edge “tack sharp” image that shows no grain at 100% magnification.

Some of these are nice images for sure but where’s the heart? Where’s the emotion? Where’s the art?

One difference between photography and painting is that most photography is done without the thought of creating art whereas most paintings/drawings are aimed to be art. You don’t see too many painters at Christmas time painting the kids while they open presents or at the DMV drawing a face to be placed on a driver’s license.

The act of pre-visualizing, composing, determining proper (to realize the vision) exposure, post processing, printing; these are all skills that require artistic abilities.

Art must communicate to either the audience or the artist. There must be intent for art to exist. If I am painting a house, my intent is to, well, paint the house. If I am painting a mural on the side of my house, my intent is to communicate, to create.

When creating art, I “make pictures”, I don’t “take pictures”, and there is a distinction. It’s fine to take pictures, it’s fine to “capture the moment” but that’s not art. There must be intent behind art.