Is photography really "Art" ?

[KurtNYC]

The difference between craft and art has been blurred by salesy hyperbole. Craft is practical and pragmatic. It creates something useful in a predefined manner. Cabinet making is a craft. Really nice looking, well-made cabinets with plumb joints are made by craftsmen (craftspeople).

Art is impractical. It is often abstract as in music. It is an artifical creation with an order and integrity that makes sense on its own terms.

I don't think photography is Art. I don't think Ansel Adams is an artist any more than a guy who shoots pictures of houses for real estate ads. The landscape in an Ansel Adams picture was not created by him. It is a 'found object' which Adams and his viewers recognize as beautiful, profound or in some way moving. But it isn't Art. Stand on the floor of Yosemite Valley and you will know that Adams was just a tourist with a bigger camera than most. If his pictures have power it is because the real thing has 100 times as much power.

Annie Leibowitz is a craftsman. She has created unique portraits of famous celebrities. The lighting is artificial, the exposures carefully calculated. Her photos convey the style and excitement of rock stars. I have a hard time not calling these photos Art -- but what makes them speak to us is the person in front of the camera, not the one behind it. Again, the power and energy of the subject is so strong that it is conveyed in spite of being photographed, not because of it. Photography is a craft.

Feel free to disagree.

[DS1]

1. Next to much art, some photographs are masterpieces in their own right

"The Kiss" comes to mind as a perfect example of shit that's rammed down our throats by ignorant art history professors who make a living talking about shit.

[DS1]

3. but to address your 'craft v art' argument

Look at "Mr. Flings Paint on White" Pollock. Is that art? No. Is it a craft? Hardly. Yet some people think it's art because it "pushes the definition of art - and makes us question what the definition of art is". Personally I'd be much better off without those stupid pretentious arguements. Same goes for "fountain". That's not art. That's found objects by your standards. Piss Christ, not art. Filling a bathtub full of your own blood then carving out your figure over a year ot two. Not art. Psychotic, but not art.

[asthmaticeog]

2. Doug and Mike Starn?

Sigmar Polke?
Man Ray?

The artistic use of any medium is art. Paint is often used to create low-level advertising illustrations. Does that mean that no painting is art?

Start over, KurtNYC.

[Lerkfish]

4. and, I disagree.

thanks for letting me feel free to do so. :)

art is anything that expresses something. (Hell, as one fellow art student said "art is anything you can get away with)
If you don't think a photograph can express something, then we'll have to disagree.

[KurtNYC]

8. a xerox copy can express something

but it doesnt really create anything.

Photography is to art what recording is to music.

[pmbryant]

24. So by your definition, is Rembrandt art?

?x

[mopinko]

5. adams did not just report

he did a lot of skilled manipulation in the darkroom.
for many photographers the art is in the set-up. people like cindy sherman created whole universes to photograph.
photos are just another media. no more or less likely to be art than paint.
this is a 100+ year old argument, and i think your side has already lost.

[KurtNYC]

10. what does adams create that isn't there?

He is not God. The power of his subjects is not his power.

Nature's plagarist.

[northzax]

28. Ah, but by that definition, all landscapes, still lifes and portraits

are a craft, not art. What did Van Gogh 'create' but a new way of seeing something that was already there? What did Vermeer create? Da Vinci? (who's overrated as a painter anyway) by your definition, as I understand it, Michelangelo and Rafael were artists only half the time, when they created a picture from their heads, rather than represent something that already existed (the Sistine Chapel was made up imagery, his team made the pictures from something that existed only in text, but they certainly drew on previous imagery of the subject, so people would recognize them) Guernica is, therefore, 'art' since it represents something, but "boy with a pipe" is not art, since it is a new way of looking at a solid thing (the boy.) right?

rembrandt? half artist (Storm on the Sea of Galilee) half plagiarist (Black Watch)

Look at Monet's landscapes. plagiarism os something that was already there?

And the power lies in the artistic interpretation of framing a photograph, and in making the image a new way of seeing something. Adams and White used skill and art in framing photographs and in manipulating the images in the post production process to force you to see something new. How is that actually different from painting a landscape? both use the Artist's skill and vision to create a new way of seeing something.

Are you trying to argue that only abstract art is truely 'art'? That Brugel, who painted the fantastic, was more of an artist than El Greco, who painted portraits?

[KurtNYC]

49. But the painter makes us see objects when there is only paint

they transform what they see into paint and it is changed by them and the process. Art.

[pmbryant]

50. Same with photography

Except the medium isn't paint.

[northzax]

51. paint is chemicals that interact with light to create an image

photographic chemicals do the same thing. Adams made you see what he wanted you to see, by using different blends of chemicals and light, he created an image that represented something. How is that different than painting?

[KurtNYC]

53. Adams found beautiful objects

and was craftsman enough to reproduce them on film. If he had optically rendered them to look like a say, a chain of mountains that stretch toward inifinity, he would be an artist. But photography is simply a copy of something which exists. The object may be art but the copy isn't.

[Ready4Change]

6. The distinction is in the viewer.

I find art has as much to do with what you, as the viewer, bring to it as it does with what the artist puts into it.

[mindfulNJ]

7. Photographs are art

Photography is the craft of creating the art pieces...the photograph. I have to absolutely disagree with you about Ansel Adams. Read up about the methods that he used to take his famous nature photos of his "found objects"...not exactly snapshots from an instamatic! He used extensive darkroom technics of dodging and burning to achieve his amazing results. The fact that his pictures have the power that they do, AND in black and white no less, is due to amazing creativity and forethought. They are art piecses, IMHO.

[KurtNYC]

11. I know Adams techniques

And in my view they make him a great craftsman.

I don't see the creativity I guess. If it was montage or digital composition I could see the creation. Adams was a better photographer than most but created only flat small copies of real objects.

[Mallifica]

22. Have you ever DONE any photography?

Besides pointing and clicking? I mean, have you ever developed your own photographs?

There is quite a bit of forethought about composition, lighting, filters, exposure time, film, subject matter, etc. that goes into a photograph before any picture is taken. After that, there's an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to putting it on paper. Photographs are a representation of reality (much like some painting), and some of them are quite abstract as well. You see what the artist wants to you see, through his or her eyes. This is quite different from cabinet-making and other crafts, which actually produce realties.

I very much disagree with you, and think that you may have a different perspective if you ever tried to do photography.

PS - I think that Ansel Adams was a genius. People at one time though that impressionism was not art - but look where that got Van Gogh.

[rainy]

9. What is Art? Who decides? How do you know what is art?

Is an old pagan goddess statue art? Is a fork art? Is a shell art? Must there be an artist for art to exist? Does the intent of the artist have to match the viewer's interpretation for it to be successful art?
If the artist intends to make art does that make it art? What makes it successful or unsuccessful? The artist plays a role as most anyone in some instances can reproduce with ease what passes for art.

Is the 21st century art what the wealthy connoisseurs of art say it is?
Just like the constitution is what the supreme court says it is.

Photography is art.

[KurtNYC]

18. Mister Rainy, you sure ask a lot of questions....

Art reflects a creative vision - craft reflects workmanship and attention to detail. A goddess statue is art. Fork is not art. Shell is a found object and not art. Intent have to match? - no. Art can be misunderstood and frequently is. Craft btw is almost never misunderstood (Adams in Yosemite - what's to misunderstand?).

If the artist intends to make art it is art. Could be terrible but still art. If the artist makes a table then the artist has made a craft piece. What makes Art successful? Whether it moves the audience or not. And I would argue that what moves a peson about a Yosemite photo, or about John Lennon wrapped around Yoko, is not Admas or Leibowitz but Yosemite and John Lennon respectively.

[rainy]

31. I ask a lot of questions because art is open ended.

If I glue a fork and a shell onto a piece of cardboard and hang it on my wall is it then art? If the fork is intricate, detailed and finely silvercrafted, is it then art? If I wrap central park in fabric, (Christo), and call it art is it art? If Christo does it it attomatacally becomes art, why? I am an art teacher, and art is undefinable. What is art is an open ended question. Critics spend a lifetime debating the meaning and definition of art, Arthur Dante comes to mind. It makes for interesting discussions though. The kids love to discuss "What is art."
And, it is Ms. Rainy

[KurtNYC]

36. Art is not undefineable

but my question was really about craft versus art.

Surely you can admit that some things are not art - that is the start of a definition. Glued fork and shell = art. Fine silver craft = craft. Christo = artist.

[progressoid]

32. "If the artist intends to make art it is art" Huh?

You are contradicting yourself. If intention matters then a lot of photographers you don't accept as artists are actually artists (including Adams). They intend to create art therefore it is art - technique is a non-issue with your definition.

"What makes Art successful? Whether it moves the audience or not..."
I know many people who can be moved by the beauty in a table. So the table is art and the person that made it is an artist by your definition

[rainy]

37. I never defined art, that was the whole point of the questions

art is undefinable. According to certain critics intentions matter, but do they? The artist can intend one thing and the viewer can see something else. What does that mean?

[KurtNYC]

41. Means that it is abstract

When you have a 1 + 1 = 3 situation (the whole greater than the sum of the parts, or more specifically, with a more rich and profound meaning than the pieces had separately) then you most likely have Art.

[KurtNYC]

38. Adams intended to make photographs

not sure he consider it Art. If he intended to make music then he would definitely be creating art (even if it wasn't especially good). Someone did a whole book of paintings by cats and cat paintings are art.

If someone is moved by the beauty of a table, they tend to thinking 'wow, nice table' and not 'this table makes me see my life in a new way.' (craft) If someone creates a table that looks like it came out of a Dali painting then it is a sculpture that plays with the idea of a table. (art)

[rainy]

43. What about functional art?

A quilt is functional art. Pottery is functional art. Can a car be art? What about piss and a crucifix in a jar? 21st century art critics call that art. I coined the phrase, Disturbism, for art of the 90's. It almost always had to be disturbing to be considered art during that decade. Give me your best definition of art and there will always be art that doesn't fit that explaination. I'm not really arguing with you we are both right I believe.

[progressoid]

44. You are getting way too caught up in finite definitions

That's just going to give you a headache. Once you create the Grand Answer to the ultimate question of the art, life, universe, and everything...then what?

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. That depends on the photographer.

Man Ray's photographs, for instance, are art.

[cali]

13. Your definition of art is a little too narrow

for me. I believe that photography absolutely can be art, as can pottery, film and other genres, including jewelry and furniture making. For instance, much of the the Art Nouveau movement was predicated on elevating every day items into the realm of art. And much of it succeeded. Some forms of contemporary dance integrate everyday movements into the choreographers artistic vision. Art is not relegated to three or four mediums.

[Crankie Avalon]

14. Well, if you locked up a photographer in a jail cell...

...with his camera, the photographer would only be able to give you different images off of the inside of that jail cell.

Put a painter or illustrator in the same situation with their corresponding tools, and they would be able to make wholly independent images using their imaginations.

I would say that photographers are not as creative as artists. Hell, even Guiliani took photos of New York landmarks that were not that much different from what a professional photographer would have done.

However, don't try telling people who can't draw a straight line and whose only artistic outlet is photography this...I've had this conversation before and they get a little defensive about it.

The best of them, in their way, are artists, though--in my opinion.

[KurtNYC]

27. I'm being technical for the sake of argument

don't try telling people who can't draw a straight line and whose only artistic outlet is photography this...I've had this conversation before and they get a little defensive about it.

I have had those converation and was thinking about that angle when I started this thread. Personally I think being a great craftsman is usually better than being an "artist." For starters you get paid more often but more often you get more universal praise. A well-tailored suit or a gorgeous cabinet is appreciated by all. Jackson Pollack looks like an accident to most people.

But people put art on a higher level than craft. I think of the two less as a heirarchy and more of two overlapping categories. I think many artists show mastery of a craft.

Sorry to sound judgemental. I love a great photo but I thought it would be interesting to try to pin down this distinction.

[progressoid]

39. Hopefully, you never will pin down a distinction

That's the great thing about 'art', it (and your perception) should be constantly evolving. I used to be an art snob. I thought I could make conclusive decisions about what art was and which was the best of the lot. I don't even like the term 'Art' anymore -it's too loaded.

If you are looking for clear definition, you are going to be disappointed.

Art, religion, politics, sex, etc...they are all in flux.

[KurtNYC]

42. I'm not holding Art up saying things can't be called that until

they meet some like-ability type of criteria. I have seen plenty of Art that is crap - not as valuable as the objects they mutilated making it. But it is Art.

[johnnie]

15. Art is anything you want it to be

There doesn't seem to be a proper definition as to what art is and isn't. I personally believe that anything you do is art to some extent. It is just how one perceives what they are listing to or seeing or even feeling that constitutes what art is to that person.

[SarahB]

16. Yes, it is.

I disagree.

[No Mandate Here.]

17. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for shouting. Two dimensional art is, in every possible instance, a representation of what the artist sees, using light. Without light, there would be no art. Without light, there would be no photography.

If fine photography is not art, why am I so bad at it? In other words, why isn't everyone as good as Liebowitz or Adams or Cartier-Bresson or ...???

[CO Liberal]

19. There's a Difference Between a Photograph and a Snapshot

A photograph reflects the skill of the photographer - lighting, background, composition, contrast, focus, filtering, etc. That qualifies as art, IMHO.

A snapshot is something taken on the fly, often with little forethought. An example would be when my mother took pictures of my kid sister in her confirmation gown, not realizing she was standing where the trash cans would be in the shot. To me, snapshots do NOT qualify as art.

[XNASA]

20. Sure it is.

I submit my own work for your critique.

[KurtNYC]

30. I like it

blows the doors off of Adams.

[fluffernutter]

21. of course it is.

i disagree it is merely because the subject has the power, i believe it is the way the subject is depicted by the photographer/artist that makes it powerful and makes us feel emotion.

[MsAnthropy]

23. Yes it is

Each photographer's work is different and reflects the emotions and character and style of the artist behind the photograph. It can also be used to make political statements, just as other art media, such as the WPA photography of the '30s.

[Book Lover]

25. I think any craft can reach art

I hand bind books, and from that perspective, I agree with your basic assertion. However, I believe an object d'art requires craftsmanship; otherwise anyone can fling pigment at a canvas and call it art.

[mopinko]

26. anyway

the distinction betweeen art and craft is a sticky ball of mostly bullshit.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. Yes some of it is ART

And what makes some photography art is the artistic vision of the photographer and the ability to bring that vision to paper.

[BiggJawn]

33. And Thomas Kincaid is an Artist....

Take a Leibowitz or Adams print and place it next to a vacation snapshot taken by your Aunt. (unless Annie's your aunt)

See the diference?
I HOPE you see a difference.

That's what makes it "art".

And as Ali Baba told us in a long-forgotten issue of "The Philistine",
"Art is mainly a matter of Haircut".

I take good photographs. Am I an artist? Sadly, no. Some of my stuff is good, and has been displayed at the State Fair, but I know it's not fit to be a hypo stain on Ansel's floor.

I follow a set formula arrived at by hours of experimentation (and countless rolls of film) to acheive an expected result. That is "craftwork", IMO.

[KurtNYC]

35. Thomas. Kincaid, Is. An. Artist - there I said it

ewwww.

Note to self: be more careful which side you take in rhetorical arguments.

[BiggJawn]

47. LOL!

Well, you didn't disqualify HACK "artists", now didja?

I prefer "happy little clouds" myself...

[Amaya]

34. I have a good friend who is an incredible photographer

I believe he's an artist. I believe his photos are art.

But hey, art is a matter of taste, I suppose.

[ze_dscherman]

40. (Some of) it definitely is

I did study photography (for some time). I was/am pretty good at it, some time even making most of my living off it - but would not really consider myself an artist. I remember I met one of the great photogs one day, Josef Koudelka. We were at the very same event, the very same place. What I got out of it (although good in technical details, lighting and composition) were good photographs. But what he did was something entirely different (I did not see his pictures of that event, but what he created on similar occasions).

I also have some friends I consider artists, who do very good photography, but have to live from professional assignments. I can see their mastering of the trade in their professional works, but what they create as art is something completely different.

If you can't see the difference between an amateur snapshot, the work of a good artisan photographer, and pictures of Strand, Bresson, Koudelka etc. it's not because these photographers are not artists. It's only because you are not able to recognize it.

Of course, what art is supposed to be will always be a matter of defenition and cultural background. And I will readily admit that much of photographic "art" is mostly hype. But that can also be applied to "art" created by a painter. Just because someone can do excellent drawing doesn't make him an artist - he may also do excellent graphics, scientific illustration or bad kitsch.

[KurtNYC]

46. Skilled craftsmen versus unskilled

I can see the difference between a a square, level well-made table and a poorly made one but it doesn't mean that either is or is not Art.

I'm going at the definition of Art which is outside of 'is this good or bad?' but more toward 'does this speak to (or at least attempt to) speak to something larger than for example, a table.

Who among us could not have taken this photo?

[Schema Thing]

45. You couldn't be more wrong :P~

There, I disagreed.

But seriously, as a photographer and sometimes artist, I don't really understand why this question is ever asked, for more than a few "brain fart" seconds before being discarded as a just.plain.silly....question.

Photography is a craft. No shit. So is painting, sculpting, and peeing in the snow. Have you seen my work in the snow? Most people weep.

[KurtNYC]

48. Art Baby!

This is art because there is something elusive and profound in it:

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on,
and our little lives
are rounded with a sleep"

Mortality, philosophy and wonder all in one sentence. Not that every sentence is art but that is. And it is worth seeking out.

I think artists ask this question (art v. craft) all the time. Of themselves, of their employers. I quote the twit from the movie 'Sid and Nancy':

"Gonna get a job, gonna get a good job,
one that satisfies my artistic needs."

[Dastard Stepchild]

52. Yes.

I felt free to disagree.