is photography an art or just a perfect technique?

[MrJones]

this is an interesting discussion that a friend of mine has brought up on his facebook.
here is the link for the original note

basically he is arguing that while painting and sculpturing are a form of art, photography is mainly a perfect technique most of the time.
while a painter, a musician or a sculpture create out of nothing, we usually document scenes.
this could be for a magazine, a newspaper, a senior shoot or nature photography. we can create stunning pictures, stunning portraits and capture nature at it's best but is it really "art"?

you can translate the entire note with google translate.
Itzik Canetti, the guy who wrote the note, has been a photographer for the last 25 years and has been in the photojournalism business, fashion, weddings and now he shoots artistic kind of photography for his pleasure.

so what do you think?

They don't create something from nothing, that's impossible.

You're friend is clueless.

[Tzetsin]

I'd say that if your a photojournalist then the argument has merit. Your documenting a moment in time using accepted proper technique. A portrait photographer, depending on their ability, might be construed the same way, however i've definitely seen portrait "art" as well.

Pretty much every other style of photography is defiantly art. It starts with a vision, is set up and shot to evoke emotion. Alot of times it looks nothing like reality and the end result is so far from the original shot that its unrecognizable.

The work that I do is can barely be called photography, however that is the medium I start with. Some people hate it, some people love it. That is the essence of what "Art" is.

[Izzy]

Both art perfecting a technique. I know I am also a musician. Your friends argument is BS.

Art is measured on a level of snobbiness. The more you say "darling" the more zeros you can add to you nonsensical arty spasm. Add poodle dyed pink and big sunglasses for another zero.

Most modern art is cr@p.

[MrJones]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

They don't create something from nothing, that's impossible.

You're friend is clueless.

are you even capable of managing a discussion?
why are you always make declarations like "you're friend is clueless"?

and when talking about "creating from nothing", I mean they arrange the scene in their head before even starting to paint or arrange it physically.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by MrJones

creating from nothing"

If this is not what you mean then don't use the term. {see photography's thread on "Photoshop"}

I see "poof" as a lame excuse

[Niresangwa]

I think we touched on this a short while ago in the thread about abstract art, where this kind of comment started it...

Originally Posted by Izzy

Most modern art is cr@p.

I'd disagree with the premise that is suggested however. The creativity, therefore the 'art' as commonly accepted, is not related to 'technical perfection', arguably it's deviation from technical 'perfection' that forms the foundation of creativity, (the caveats being dynamic lighting and adventurous composition)...

I'd also disagree with this...

Originally Posted by Tzetsin

I'd say that if your a photojournalist then the argument has merit. Your documenting a moment in time using accepted proper technique.

The scope of 'photojournalism' in the classic sense, perhaps, but in the modern sense, such as candid coverage at weddings and events, the argument loses steam. I look at a lot of wedding photography, and it can look very sterile and not much given to recreating a feeling from the day, in fact unless you take some sort of conscious step to evolve it, it just becomes a snapshot from a nice camera...

[MrJones]

Originally Posted by Tzetsin

I'd say that if your a photojournalist then the argument has merit. Your documenting a moment in time using accepted proper technique. A portrait photographer, depending on their ability, might be construed the same way, however i've definitely seen portrait "art" as well.

Pretty much every other style of photography is defiantly art. It starts with a vision, is set up and shot to evoke emotion. Alot of times it looks nothing like reality and the end result is so far from the original shot that its unrecognizable.

The work that I do is can barely be called photography, however that is the medium I start with. Some people hate it, some people love it. That is the essence of what "Art" is.

ok, now you're talking about vision. if you have an interesting vision and you actually help it come to life then it's a form of art.
on the other hand, taking portraits with the same lightning in a studio.. would you call it art?

to be honest, I wrote him the exact thing.
IMO, there are photographers who create art and there are painters who just document the scene. each field has it's artistic quality and it's technique quality.
for me, a photo / painting / music is "art" if it makes me think about it after i went on with my business.

[OsmosisStudios]

A perfect technique will yield an image that is properly exposed, focused, etc. Without a vision of some kind, it's nothing.

In much the same way I could say Carravaggio had perfect technique: his brush strokes, colour palette mixes, application, etc. But without the mind behind it to choose what to apply those brush strokes to, what colours to create, and how to apply them for effect, his works were nothing.

[Tzetsin]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

The scope of 'photojournalism' in the classic sense, perhaps, but in the modern sense, such as candid coverage at weddings and events, the argument loses steam. I look at a lot of wedding photography, and it can look very sterile and not much given to recreating a feeling from the day, in fact unless you take some sort of conscious step to evolve it, it just becomes a snapshot from a nice camera...

Thats what I was saying. photojounalism isnt what I would call art. I'd say its being at the right place at the right time to document something someone might find important. Portraits too, very little about it is art, I consider wedding photography somewhere between photojounalism and portraiture. Like portraiture, It has the capacity to be "Art" depending on the photographers skill.

But not all portraiture can be devoid of art either, again, it depends on the skill of the photographer. If you set up some lighting in a studio at walmart, have some non photographer person push the shutter button, you could hardly call that art. But if you scout a location, shoot with customised lighting and edit the image to evoke a certain feeling, then I'd say it was art.

Perhaps we could really say that just because someone picks up a paintbrush and slops some paint on a canvas, it doesnt make them any more of an artist than someone who picks up a camera and pushes the button. It becomes art only after the person puts INTENT into the piece.

My kid can slop paint on a canvas, its not art. But Jackson Pollack can slop paint on a canvase with INTENT and now its become art.