Is there such a thing as art photography?

Martin Parr defined art photography as something like: it's over 32" and costs more than £3000.

Some people on here and elsewhere seem to get very het-up about "art" when it is really quite simple, art is made by an artist as art. So if an artist takes a photograph as art then it is art. We can collectively decide if it is good or bad art and individually decide if we like it or not. An artist can take a snap of a sunset or their kids and decide that it is not art, in which case it isn't art, or they can take a photo of whatever and say that it is art, that is in their gift.
 
Last edited:
I consider myself to be an artist who uses a camera as his main tool. I am a member of the Lincolnshire Artists Society and regularly exhibit with them, keeping my own with oil paintings, watercolours, and other media.
 
sirch said:
Martin Parr defined art photography as something like: it's over 32" and costs more than £3000.

Some people on here and elsewhere seem to get very het-up about "art" when it is really quite simple, art is made by an artist as art. So if an artist takes a photography as art then it is art. We can collectively decide if it is good or bad art and individually decide if we like it or not. An artist can take a snap of a sunset or their kids and decide that it is not art, in which case it isn't art, or they can take a photo of whatever and say that it is art, that is in their gift.
Click to expand...
A disciple of Duchamp? Not my favourite
 
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

What Is an 'Art Photographer'?

Art photography, AKA fine art photography, is just a way of doing photography. It's either a mode of approach or a mode of practice. I'll start with the latter first because it's easy to describe. Mode of practice: I'll just...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
 
I reckon that the definitive statement on this is "art for art's sake but money for god's sake", which is a line attributed to Hymie Gouldman by his son Graham, who used it in a successful song for his band 10cc.

So: if you say it's art and you get paid for it, then it's art photography. Mind you, if you say it's art and you don't get paid for it, then it's still art photography.
 
sirch said:
Martin Parr defined art photography as something like: it's over 32" and costs more than £3000.

Some people on here and elsewhere seem to get very het-up about "art" when it is really quite simple, art is made by an artist as art. So if an artist takes a photography as art then it is art. We can collectively decide if it is good or bad art and individually decide if we like it or not. An artist can take a snap of a sunset or their kids and decide that it is not art, in which case it isn't art, or they can take a photo of whatever and say that it is art, that is in their gift.
Click to expand...

While this is the textbook definition, I'm also inclined to suggest that it's art if the viewer thinks it is, and isn't if they don't, regardless of the intent of the original photographer. I don't think art is really about the work at all, but rather about how it's understood and received, especially if those recognised as artists call the work 'art'.
 
Ed Sutton said:
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

What Is an 'Art Photographer'?

Art photography, AKA fine art photography, is just a way of doing photography. It's either a mode of approach or a mode of practice. I'll start with the latter first because it's easy to describe. Mode of practice: I'll just...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
Click to expand...
An excellent article, Dave, although I totally disagree about the leading part, "The Mode of Practice". I say this, even though I would fit that definition part of definition really well. However, in my view even if you go through the same motions as the art photographer and even if you aim to say exhibit and even if you are exhibited, it does not make you an art photographer. On the other hand "the mode of approach" describes art photographer well. It talks about something that is more about the photographer and less about what is being photographed. I buy that. Equally or perhaps more importantly is the creativity and imagination that goes into creation of images. For me, those two characteristic define not just art photography but art in general.
 
ancient_mariner said:
While this is the textbook definition, I'm also inclined to suggest that it's art if the viewer thinks it is, and isn't if they don't, regardless of the intent of the original photographer. I don't think art is really about the work at all, but rather about how it's understood and received, especially if those recognised as artists call the work 'art'.
Click to expand...

When I worked for Systime Computers I thought their MK10 VDU board was beautiful. I see a lot of technology and practical things that look better and inspire me more than a lot of art. One thing which often does bug me is art done badly. Sometimes it wont matter but sometimes a lack of practical skill ruins it for me. I've seen a lot of bad art at my local gallery, MIMA.
 
woof woof said:
When I worked for Systime Computers I thought their MK10 VDU board was beautiful. I see a lot of technology and practical things that look better and inspire me more than a lot of art. One thing which often does bug me is art done badly. Sometimes it wont matter but sometimes a lack of practical skill ruins it for me. I've seen a lot of bad art at my local gallery, MIMA.
Click to expand...

In the late 90s I visited the Picasso museum in Barcelona. One of his early pieces was the most incredibly detailed, almost photographic picture that was quite honestly astonishing. It was odd to see his later work that had none of that conventional quality, but which has been recognised to display something of greater value. It might not be a lack of skill, so much as a different intent.
 
ancient_mariner said:
While this is the textbook definition, I'm also inclined to suggest that it's art if the viewer thinks it is, and isn't if they don't, regardless of the intent of the original photographer. I don't think art is really about the work at all, but rather about how it's understood and received, especially if those recognised as artists call the work 'art'.
Click to expand...
Definitions of art are of course continually changed and fought over. This is why I posted the post - to trigger a discussion. When I became motivated to explore photography as art, I looked for definitions that would be "actionable" or lead my exploration. I was lucky. The most definitions I could find included 2 pillars. 1)Creativity and imagination and 2) Something that is personal, about the photographer, that reflects the interests, thoughts, believes, sense of aesthetics and humour. There are other definitions, of course. There is a class of definitions, pioneered by Marcel Duchamp, which says that art is what the artist says that it is, provided that the artist has a backing of some other artists. I freely admit that I personally hate this definition and although I continue to be blown away by modern art accomplishments (from say Turner to say somewhere just past and mostly exempting Duchamp), by broad strokes and with exceptions I find few works that truly turn me on.
 
Pavel M said:
Definitions of art are of course continually changed and fought over. This is why I posted the post - to trigger a discussion. When I became motivated to explore photography as art, I looked for definitions that would be "actionable" or lead my exploration. I was lucky. The most definitions I could find included 2 pillars. 1)Creativity and imagination and 2) Something that is personal, about the photographer, that reflects the interests, thoughts, believes, sense of aesthetics and humour. There are other definitions, of course. There is a class of definitions, pioneered by Marcel Duchamp, which says that art is what the artist says that it is, provided that the artist has a backing of some other artists. I freely admit that I personally hate this definition and although I continue to be blown away by modern art accomplishments (from say Turner to say somewhere just past and mostly exempting Duchamp), by broad strokes and with exceptions I find few works that truly turn me on.
Click to expand...

Duchamp is interesting for his Fountain, which I think probably identified a change in the perception and acceptance of art, and validates his definition in modern art.

I decided a while ago that what ever I made was not art - I found myself despising the whole system that looked down on those who only managed 'craft', and wanted nothing to do with it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In the late 90s I visited the Picasso museum in Barcelona. One of his early pieces was the most incredibly detailed, almost photographic picture that was quite honestly astonishing. It was odd to see his later work that had none of that conventional quality, but which has been recognized to display something of greater value. It might not be a lack of skill, so much as a different intent.
Click to expand...
Toni, I am guessing that the high quality craft underpinning art is really important to you. I too love well crafted things, but in my mind well crafted photo or painting is not necessarily art and vice versa. Picasso is clearly an exceptional craftsman. I watched a documentary about him as he was lecturing and as he was lecturing, he draw a bull with a single casual brush stroke that almost leapt from canvas. But that is not in my view the root of his fame. His later work explored different revolutionary new ideas and styles and as he became famous for them, he dropped them and started something radically different. We all have preferences. I love his surrealistic period but no matter how much I try, I can not really get into his analytical cubism that he worked on with Braque. So Toni, I am not surprised that his later works were admired more than his early works. Guernica is an incredible work for example and there are many versions as he struggled to capture the horror of the war on civilians. It is very rare that seeing an image hits me as hard as that work. I tried to see the version in the UN, but I was not able to as the section was closed. Of course over his lifetime, Picasso's craft skills no doubt continued to improve, but what he is justly and roundly admired is innovation and creativity he contributed to art.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Duchamp is interesting for his Fountain, which I think probably identified a change in the perception and acceptance of art, and validates his definition in modern art.

I decided a while ago that what ever I made was not art - I found myself despising the whole system that looked down on those who only managed 'craft', and wanted nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Toni, good art and good craft can coexist quite peacefully even in on painter or photographer. Being a good craftsman gives you more options to produce something creative-art. Craft can be a destination for some, for some it is an important stepping stone.
 
Of course there is.

But, having to ask the question means that you will never know what it is.
 
woof woof said:
When I worked for Systime Computers I thought their MK10 VDU board was beautiful. I see a lot of technology and practical things that look better and inspire me more than a lot of art. One thing which often does bug me is art done badly. Sometimes it wont matter but sometimes a lack of practical skill ruins it for me. I've seen a lot of bad art at my local gallery, MIMA.
Click to expand...
Alan, creativity and imagination is not limited to fine art. It is needed in engineering and science for example. I see close links between inspired science and art for example (I am a retired research scientist)
 
Exactly.
 
Pavel M said:
An excellent article, Dave, although I totally disagree about the leading part, "The Mode of Practice". I say this, even though I would fit that definition part of definition really well. However, in my view even if you go through the same motions as the art photographer and even if you aim to say exhibit and even if you are exhibited, it does not make you an art photographer. On the other hand "the mode of approach" describes art photographer well. It talks about something that is more about the photographer and less about what is being photographed. I buy that. Equally or perhaps more importantly is the creativity and imagination that goes into creation of images. For me, those two characteristic define not just art photography but art in general.
Click to expand...
I didn't post it because I agreed. I actually gave up reading the post about two thirds in because I thought it was clickbait. :LOL:

I'm very much in the 'anything someone identifying as an artist says is art is art' camp. Not least because that is the way the art world defines art post Duchamp.

'Fine Art Photography', however, appears to me to be photography intended to be wall decoration, and is nothing like any Fine Art student would ever produce.
 
Photographers trying to sell stuff will very much classify their work in a certain way in order to appeal to their customers (paying ones, judges, gallery owners etc). "Fine Art" photography - as Dave alluded to, seems to be a prettier word for "decor" - at least in the circles I frequent. It's like people who use the word Giclée instead of "Inkjet". Like wikipedia says, it "is an unregulated word with no associated warranty of quality". I believe this also applies to "art" photography. There is no real agreed definition of the word, so I'm left defining it myself (and falling into the " 'anything someone identifying as an artist says is art is art' " camp)
 
woof woof said:
When I worked for Systime Computers
Click to expand...
Now I'm impressed: someone who not only knows that Systime existed but actually worked for them! When I took over maintenance coding on what I thought was a VAX, I discovered a Systime badge on the casing. It ran VMS just like any of DEC's products, so for quite some time I didn't realise it was made by a different company. :wideyed:
 
Pavel M said:
And if there is, how can you tell?
Click to expand...

No, there isn't, just as there is no such thing a "art painting" or "art sculpting" or "art writing" or "art music".

Within art subjects writing, painting, sculpting and music, etc we tend assume the term painter, sculptor, writer and composer as meaning a creative and artistic practitioner who records and shares a personal and possible unique view of the world, which may well be done for commercial reasons. People who tell us something about the world that we might not have seen without their help.

We tend not to refer to people who simply write out shopping lists as "writers" and we tend to qualify the other terms by using, "house painter" or "technical writer/author" etc when we want to differentiate from the artistic understanding of the terms.

Some artists use photography as a medium for their art, alone or in conjunction with other media - it is for others to decide whether it is good or bad art, just as it is up to others to decide whether this persons paintings or sculptures are good or bad art.

Some photographers make photographs as a form of artistic expression, so their intent is to make works of art - it is for others to decide whether it is good or bad art.

Some photographers make photographs that other people decide are works of art, even if this wasn't the intent of the photographer.

In terms of "art" it therefore makes sense to just be a "Photographer" who makes photographs, accept that not all people who take photographs are "photographers", that some photographers work in technically specialist areas, e.g a wildlife photographer, photomicrographer etc, and accept that any photograph from any genre has the potential of being a work of art.

In terms of labelling, there is probably a question about where the boundary lies between thinking of yourself as a "photographer" and a "digital artist" and some work defies labelling. e.g. Paul Kenny (se below) but I don't think there is any informational value in the term "art photography".



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ofiso-ekTo&t=3073s
 
myotis said:
No, there isn't, just as there is no such thing a "art painting" or "art sculpting" or "art writing" or "art music".

Within art subjects writing, painting, sculpting and music, etc we tend assume the term painter, sculptor, writer and composer as meaning a creative and artistic practitioner who records and shares a personal and possible unique view of the world, which may well be done for commercial reasons. People who tell us something about the world that we might not have seen without their help.

We tend not to refer to people who simply write out shopping lists as "writers" and we tend to qualify the other terms by using, "house painter" or "technical writer/author" etc when we want to differentiate from the artistic understanding of the terms.

Some artists use photography as a medium for their art, alone or in conjunction with other media - it is for others to decide whether it is good or bad art, just as it is up to others to decide whether this persons paintings or sculptures are good or bad art.

Some photographers make photographs as a form of artistic expression, so their intent is to make works of art - it is for others to decide whether it is good or bad art.

Some photographers make photographs that other people decide are works of art, even if this wasn't the intent of the photographer.

In terms of "art" it therefore makes sense to just be a "Photographer" who makes photographs, accept that not all people who take photographs are "photographers", that some photographers work in technically specialist areas, e.g a wildlife photographer, photomicrographer etc, and accept that any photograph from any genre has the potential of being a work of art.

In terms of labelling, there is probably a question about where the boundary lies between thinking of yourself as a "photographer" and a "digital artist" and some work defies labelling. e.g. Paul Kenny (se below) but I don't think there is any informational value in the term "art photography".



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ofiso-ekTo&t=3073s
Click to expand...
Interesting discussion, and I can't find fault with the above.

When I started reading the thread, my initial response was that, ultimately, the thing that matters is the response induced in the viewer/audience. I don't think I've read anything here that has resulted in my view changing.

As for "art photographer" as a descriptive term... well, it's not one I've ever come across in real life, so it doesn't hold a great deal of merit for me personally. On the other hand, I've always assumed that fine art photography (a term I do know) involves a mixture of both technical and creative skills, and some of what I see within that genre strikes me as being art for sure. That's pretty personal, though, and the mileage of others may vary (which is also okay).
 
learningtofly said:
When I started reading the thread, my initial response was that, ultimately, the thing that matters is the response induced in the viewer/audience. I don't think I've read anything here that has resulted in my view changing.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

It's just another example of the general principle of "goodness": the maker proposes but the consumer disposes.
 
learningtofly said:
When I started reading the thread, my initial response was that, ultimately, the thing that matters is the response induced in the viewer/audience. I don't think I've read anything here that has resulted in my view changing.
Click to expand...

I think ultimately that is correct, but I think the argument was the value, and focus of the critique (or maybe mentoring would be better word) changes if the photographer explains in words that the intent of the photograph was not, for example, to just photograph what a motorbike looks like, but to capture the idea of motion or speed etc. using the motorbike was just incidental to that intent, it could be a car, or a flying bird or a multitude of options.

A critique on whether this is a good photograph of a motorbike, or not, is pointless.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Now I'm impressed: someone who not only knows that Systime existed but actually worked for them! When I took over maintenance coding on what I thought was a VAX, I discovered a Systime badge on the casing. It ran VMS just like any of DEC's products, so for quite some time I didn't realise it was made by a different company. :wideyed:
Click to expand...

I worked in their repair dept on an industrial estate and then their magnificent glass palace. I mostly loved it but exposure to rosin bending over a soldering iron all day lead to sensitivity and I coughed night and day for over a decade. I left because field guys got more money and a car so I missed the messy end of the company. Despite the health issues it gave me a good grounding and enabled me to get on after I left. For a while I met former employees all over the place but I haven't seen any for a long time now. I did end up training my former Systime boss on Apricot PC's.
 
ancient_mariner said:
While this is the textbook definition, I'm also inclined to suggest that it's art if the viewer thinks it is, and isn't if they don't, regardless of the intent of the original photographer.
Click to expand...
I don't see why visual art gets singled out for this special treatment.

Taking the word "topic" for "field of human endeavour" then the construct "art is made by an artist as art" can be generalised to
topic is made by a topic creator as topic
Click to expand...
e.g
a theory of physics is created by a physicist as a theory of physics
a vaccine is made by a vaccinologist as a vaccine
financial accounts are created by an accountant as accounts

And so satisfies Kant's categorical imperative.

If an accountant is just doing some adding and subtracting it does not make a set of financial accounts, however if they do create a set of accounts then it is not for me or you to say that they are not accounts. We can say that they are good or bad accounts but we cannot deny their nature as accounts if they largely satisfy the commonly accepted set of attributes normally found with a set of accounts.

If a group of 5 year olds get up on a school stage with their recorders and attempt to play a tune, no one, in my experience at least, says it is not music. Doting parents will probably say that it is very good, more objective observers might not agree but given that it has many of the attributes of music: instruments, an attempt at organised sound, a performance, etc. then we accept it as music.

The point "it's art if the viewer thinks it is" is also very problematic. One of the issues is that the very thing that a lot of people rail against - namely found art - does exactly that, it takes an ordinary thing and adds to it the attributes of art, a signature, displays it in a gallery, etc. and so it becomes art independent of what the original maker intended. Another difficulty is the beauty-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder approach and eliding beauty with art, at that point anything which anyone thinks is art is art but not consistently, so something which you define as art is might not be art for me and we simply have no accepted definition of art and Kant goes out of the window.

There is though the consideration that someone might simply not recognise or be shy to admit what they are doing is art. Someone on a bicycle might not think of themselves as a cyclist in the Bradly Wiggins sense but there is no doubt that they are a cyclist at least for the time that they are riding their bike. Similarly a photographer who prints, signs, displays in a gallery and sells their work might not think of themselves as an artist but given that their work and associated process has the attributes of visual art then then really it is art and third parties can ascribe it as such whether or not the photographer defines it that way themselves.
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
or they can take a photo of whatever and say that it is art, that is in their gift.
Click to expand...
Hmmm ... I don't seriously think that anything goes, at all - I think that it needs a measure of consensus. The intent needs to have recognition, to be validated. Not all, though, are qualified to give that validation.
 
Last edited:
We use language freely in everyday casual speech, expecting others to understand us, but words can often have a range of meanings not always made clear by context. So if you want to get to the nitty gritty, for every statement you need to define your terms.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top