Do you mean that the scene has to be deliberately created artificially by the photographer?
No.. it has to be produced, taken, or whatever... with deliberate intent... for a reason. It doesn't mean the scene itself needs to be deliberately created. Even if you produce something quite by accident, you have to recognise what it's doing... communicating, and then you can edit appropriately, or even develop the work forther once you've given it context and purpose. To walk around shooting for no reason, and then choosing the "best" ones, or the ones you "like" for no reason other than "wow" or "looks cool" can not really be art because it serves no purpose other than to be a pretty adornment for a wall, or to illustrate a holiday brochure, or some other use that doesn't allow the image to "transcend" itself.. as previously discussed.
Not being art is not a bad thing. That's where people spit their dummies out. Being told your work is not art is not an insult.. it's a description. There's just as much worth in a photo that's nothing more than pleasing to look at. It's just not art if that's it's only purpose. I have a friend that makes some lovely landscpae images.. probably better than any I coudl take. I like them. I've considered asking to buy some for the wall of our cabin near Ambleside (he shoots the Lake District). It's not art though. They're bloody good images, and they are lovely things... beautiful to look at. Why is that not enough?
A photojournalist could be watching a scene unfold, then intentionally taking his image at the decisive moment - quite deliberate. So there is intent to communicate, planning and then image creation - what's missing?
Tricky one this. I think it's because the intent of the photojournalist is to report primarily, but what you describe doesn't sound like photo-journalism to me, it sounds like press photography. A photo-journalist will be working on a project... he'll be going to.. let's say... Afghanistan for a reason... not just to report the "News", but to illustrate, document, and create a narrative... a story that consists of not just one image for a newspaper headline, but a series of work that unfolds in a narrative for a magazine, or at least a full, serious and considered article in a quality newspaper or journal. As such, anything he takes will not be in isolation as a single image, there will be a whole series of other works (images and text) to support the bigger picture. Photo journalists aren't there to get a front page news image, which is why their work is of much higher quality, and often quite loaded with narrative and are clearly considered pieces. They have purpose and context. An example: A press photographer who was rushed to the scene at the World Trade Centre on Tuesday September 11th 2001 would have taken some very stark, and interesting images. He would not have realised however, that he was recording "9/11". He would not know it was the culmination of a well planned and considered attack on the US by Al Qaeda. Retrospectively, we can look back on some of these images with that context and appreciate things the photographer captured and give the image a context and weight never considered at the time, but nevertheless, he was at the right place at the right time. The images are poignant, powerful and moving, but only because of the context we apply to them LATER once we have all the pieces of the puzzle. The photojournalist however, is not rushing to the scene to record the latest scoop for the front page, he's deliberately planning and creating a whole host of images to tell the entire story KNOWINGLY and understanding what he is tacking in terms of the narrative and story. The power of the images from a photojournalist come from them as much as anything else, because they go with that remit in mind: To make sense of... to tell the whole story.
Can photojournalism be art? Yes.. absolutely. Can press imagery be art? Sometimes, yes, but press/war photographer's work tends to becomes meaningful in the sense of art after the fact, when the images take on a historical context.. once we have all the detail to relate them to the full story... only then do we fully appreciate them. Don McCullin's work is exhibited every bit as much as an "artist's" work, but not at the time, as it didn't have the full context in which to place it, and therefore appreciate it. We need the purpose of the image to transcend the image itself The reason is everything. That's why people appreciate art. That's why Emin's bed is art.. whether you like it or not, because it's not just a bed... it transcends that. As Byker said, it's a self portrait, it's about depression, mental illness, and despair. The fact that it's a bed is irrelevant (to a degree).
I enjoy these debates/arguments. I find myself agreeing with almost everything Pookeyhead says. I have a theory, its that photography draws the technically minded due to its, well, engineery type of logical process. What often happens is that we get used to and good at performing the technical type of image. As has been said before, taking 'pretty' well exposed pictures. The reality is that anyone who has also learned the technical skills could also take the same images quite easily. Often you hear people on this forum start to say "What next?", "Where do I go from here?" "I feel like I'm stuck in a rut", "It's just not holding my interest like it used to" and "I am struggling for inspiration". This is because they have reached a technical ability in their chosen field (wildlife/macro/landscape etc etc) and it no longer holds a challenge to them. It's like hitting a wall. What next, where next. My advice is generally, emotion. Try to get some kind of 'emotion' into your images. As soon as this is attempted the whole process takes on a different slant and interest. Some can't/won't, others embrace and start a whole new journey.
What actually separates the 'technical' photographer and the 'artistic' one is that art knows no boundaries. Most of the fun comes from the development of the idea. The actual execution of it can be relatively simple. Of course, as has been said before, there is no issue in being both at times.
Now, being controversial here, technical brains are technical for a reason. It is the mindset that attracted individuals to photography in the first place. The technical bit. Then someone like David (Pookeyhead) comes along and says that artistic photography requires more. Takes more thought and depth and planning and creativity. And this is where the conflict arises. Most photographers took up photography exactly and precisely because they arent that creative (if they were they'd be a painter/musician/author/sculptor etc etc) and this kind of debate then is seen as a 'threat' to their hobby. It touches on areas that they know aren't within their reach and mindset. They therefore react with aggression to the subject because it is seen to undermine the hobby itself. Obviously I'm generalising here but hopefully you get my drift.
I recently gave a presentation to a camera club in the midlands and I spoke about trying to be creative. Like David, I totally understand that we aren't all blessed with creativity. However, it is quite simple to build this into your image making. Inspiration is all around us and ultimately it doesn't matter whether its classed as 'good' art or not, its personal, its yours, its your creation. I have a hard drive full of images I enjoyed producing, some are rubbish, some I think are quite good. The fact is, I don't care what others think as I don't really show them off generally. If I did, I would want a reaction. Love or hate. "It's nice or it's good" wouldn't be a pleasing response. Interestingly, "I don't get it" also works for me.
I am a rubbish artistic photographer generally (imo) however it doesn't stop me striving to improve, doesn't stop me studying other's work and trying to understand what I like and why I like it.
Just because an image is classed as 'art' doesn't mean you are supposed to get it or like it. I earlier in the year went to London and viewed a photographic exhibition of Andy Wharhol's photographs. I didn't get it or like it and was left wondering that if it was anybody elses images would they have been exhibited. However, I just accepted I didn't get it/like it and moved on.
I, like David don't really understand the personal aggression displayed towards other's who deem to aspire, produce or appreciate 'art'. It can only be due to feeling threatened.
If its about money and £ value then its jealousy and a lack of understanding about the art world. Most 'artists' make extremely small amounts of money. Maybe there is some other reason.
Whenever 'art' is introduced as a topic, inevitably 'piles of bricks' and 'unmade beds' get trotted out as if they are what 'art' is about. It totally ignores millions of other brilliant examples of both historic and modern art. If I've heard 'Emperor's new clothes' used once in these discussions I've heard it a thousand times. It ignores artists like Antony Gormley (Angel of the North etc) who seems to be generally liked across the demographics.
David's attitude I have to say pretty much mirrors my own as if I had written some of his posts for him! (I didn't and couldn't be that eloquent!) It's simple, most images on this and other forums are nice pretty pictures with beginners striving to improve their 'technical' abilities and experienced photographers trying to better hone their technical abilities. There is very little evidence around the emotion or meaning of the images. I too have no issue with that at all. Pretty pictures are lovely to look at. But they rarely 'move' me. Loads of images that are so called art don't move me either but many do. I love those images that make you stop and think and wonder. They are the ones I wish I had taken and created and the reason I still take photographs.
Oh well, onwards and upwards...
Best post in this thread so far.