Photography Vs Art
Recently I had a debate with a painter friend of mine about what is constituted as art and where photography stands in the art world. “Photography isn’t art” he stated. “Everyone can do it and it is not difficult to do, you pick up a camera and shoot. Especially with digital photography, there is just plain nothing to it.” I came back with it depends on how the photograph is prepared, the intention of the photographer, and how the work is displayed.He then asked if I thought images from a newspaper or if I believed that wedding portraits are something that should be put up against a painting, a sculpture, or even a drawing. Again I stated that it all depends on the photographer and what the intentions are. Is the photographer is planning to show the work to the public, how much emotion is invoked into the intended audience, or what stories can be told from the particular image.I agreed that consumer photography should not be considered an art form because most people take the picture and store them away forever. Even commercial photography should not be considered because it separates the photographer from the image; meaning that someone tells the photographer what they want, giving the photographer very little freedom or control. I then told him, the same goes with a painting….if an art director says to a painter I want this and I want you to change this and get rid of that; now, the element of self is taken out of the painting and you now have a mechanical element rather than an artistic element.To me, art is the expression of ones self and how it is portrayed by the artist. When you bring in any other input to your work…..it is no longer yours, and thus is no longer art and when somebody tells you what to shoot, the only element the photographer brings to the table is the element of composition and the ability to be able to control the camera.
Recently I had a debate with a painter friend of mine about what is constituted as art and where photography stands in the art world. “Photography isn’t art” he stated. “Everyone can do it and it is not difficult to do, you pick up a camera and shoot. Especially with digital photography, there is just plain nothing to it.” I came back with it depends on how the photograph is prepared, the intention of the photographer, and how the work is displayed.He then asked if I thought images from a newspaper or if I believed that wedding portraits are something that should be put up against a painting, a sculpture, or even a drawing. Again I stated that it all depends on the photographer and what the intentions are. Is the photographer is planning to show the work to the public, how much emotion is invoked into the intended audience, or what stories can be told from the particular image.I agreed that consumer photography should not be considered an art form because most people take the picture and store them away forever. Even commercial photography should not be considered because it separates the photographer from the image; meaning that someone tells the photographer what they want, giving the photographer very little freedom or control. I then told him, the same goes with a painting….if an art director says to a painter I want this and I want you to change this and get rid of that; now, the element of self is taken out of the painting and you now have a mechanical element rather than an artistic element.To me, art is the expression of ones self and how it is portrayed by the artist. When you bring in any other input to your work…..it is no longer yours, and thus is no longer art and when somebody tells you what to shoot, the only element the photographer brings to the table is the element of composition and the ability to be able to control the camera.
No comments:
Post a Comment