I think that only some photos can be considered as "art", this is because not all photos are intended to be art. For example, the picture of the assignment you sent for your friend isn't meant to be art, whereas the pictures on the gallery wall are intended to be. For me, it's the photos that have had effort put into them to change the aperture, shutter speed and ISO to capture a moment in time exactly how a photographer wants to.
I understand why some artists may be reluctant to say that photography is an art form because of the days, months and years gone into creating a painting or sculpture when a photo can be taken instantly. Whether a photo like this has been taken in 1/30 or 1/3000 of a second, it still deserves to be recognised as a piece of art because of the thought and creativity gone into the final product that is created.
As Art Critic John Berger in Ways of Seeing said; "Unlike any other visual image, a photograph is not a rendering, an imitation or an interpretation of its subject, but actually a trace of it. No painting or drawing, however naturalist, belongs to its subject in the way that a photograph does." I agree with this, that there is something special about the camera, and how people can take pictures of the same thing, but a photograph will always belong with a particular moment in time.
Whilst I can be said to be biased towards the argument for photography being an art (I've never been able to draw particularly well, or sculpt a perfect model out of plasticize etc.), I do believe that an art gallery's wall would feel empty without the addition of photographs that make you stop and think, words often associated with art.
0 Comments