Your photo sharing community!

Share On

I think of photography as an art form, but reading through comments and posts it's amazing how many people focus almost exclusively on the craft of photography - selecting the right lens, aperture, composition etc. An artist, by definition, creates a vision from the raw materials at hand - whether that be a block of stone, a paint pallette or a lipstick. As a photographer there will always be a limitation in that you must record what is in front of you - albeit from the best posible angle with optimal lighting etc. We don't really have the capacity to create something from that image until we put it in the darkroom. Is what we do an art, is it a craft or is it somewhere in between?

I think it is both an art and a craft. The photographer must sucessfully execute the craft in order to achieve the desired artistic results. Further artistic effects can be achieved post exposure in the darkroom, be it wet or digital.

Photography is a body of technique that can be used to create art or to do other stuff such as document events.

The 20th century gave us a valuable lesson about art. Art is. Which means that there is no definition of Art. If there was one, it would mean that someone really knows the answer. I do believe that the man/woman who would even suggest that he/she possess such a power and authority, is merely a power seeking, authoritative, dictatorisc. Art and craft are one and the same or totally different or contributing to one another; and that is by your choice and only. How many times have you started to document a family event, maybe trivial or just boring and ended up with a photograph that absolutely delighted you as art? And how many times have "great artists" proved nonsense through their art ? and within all these there was great craftsmanship involved or amateurism or luck or inspiration or enlightment or an accident or all of them or some of them... Does it really matter ? What matters is the fact that you stated at one given moment that your creation was art. Everyone should respect it as art even if they think and say that it is bad art.
Rules and definitions are for those who are afraid of loosing their titles, but that belongs to another discussion. It might form a nice question...btw I liked your Sydney Harbour stitched panorama...

"What matters is the fact that you stated at one given moment that your creation was art. Everyone should respect it as art even if they think and say that it is bad art."

Alexander Pope said "True art is nature to advantage dressed, What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed."

If the definition of art is simply anything that I say is art, then surely that invalidates the concept. Anyone sould set themselves up as an artist simply by saying "What I do, no matter how crass or simplistic, is art."

However, this goes away from the topic I was hoping to discuss, which is the point at which photography crosses the line from a craft and becomes an art.

For example, if you go through a product catalogue you will see any number of technically excellent photgraphs. The lighting is properly planned, the shot is correctly set up, the exposure is carefully calculated etc. All of this, in my view, is simple craft. You can learn it from a book. Take that same product catalogue and give it to a photographer who is less interested in portraying what is in front of the lens as what is behind it - i.e. the vision of the photographer - and you will come up with a set of photogrpahs that is just as technically proficient but quantifiably different from the product catalogue.

Art does not happen by accident. It is the result of a planned creative process. I guess what I'm getting at (and what I increasingly believe) is that photograph art is a product of the darkroom, not of the camera. Thus a photographer who does not have access to a darkroom - wet or digital - is only ever going to have the capacity to practice a craft, not explore an art form. Of course, for the majority of photogrpahers, capturing the moment is enough in itself.

Craft is listed under "C"

Art is listed under "A"

Photography is listed under "P"

Shame on you.

...
Painters in the beginning of the 20th century thought of photographers as mere immitators. Printing and illustration, were for those supposed fine artists just ways and means to reproduce their work. Collage was for those who could not paint properly and cinematography was a profession of the wrist. And still these deprived of their arthood fellow humans, did Art. Actually better Art that any of the fine artists of their period.
This, that art is, should be understood first and then one can talk about art that assists someone towards discovering Truth, Order, Harmony and Essence.
Wherever you do your art, out there capturing the moment or painstakingly darkrooming your negatives, it will be art when you show it to the public, hoping that you realized in external form a true idea (Aristotle), comprehended order through repetition (Borghes) achieved proportions through the harmonics of the golden mean that your eye works according to and tried to get closer to the essence that you had as a child, which is your unified form of all three, soul, body and mind in order to evolve (Gurdjieff).
I responded to your question to suggest that there is a way to bypass it and through this bypass cancel it, since your question presupposes that craft and art differ.
And that is not always true, as far as I am concerned and photography is one case that it does not happen as I've already stated.
The result of a well planned creative process, with no accidents, timed and scheduled to the last detail, as you suggest that art is, sounds to me unattainable in its parts.
Call it art, when you go public and be open to criticism.
Why do you need to know that it is art in the darkroon according to your process and not in the camera?
Btw in greek and german the word techne and kunst is used for both art and craft...

Why do you feel you may only create something from the darkroom ?
Although certainly the realm of craft it is merely to learn it and so enact something personal.
Whether you whish that to be called art ,effects ,craft ect is irrelevant as it what matters to you thats important.
I feel most apreciative about interaction of people and environment from the begining all the way to the end.
BTW
ever tried painting with light ?
Double exposure ?
Zooming ?
moving and taking a moving subject ?
A photo of the dodgem cars while driving one ?
what would make you decide to do this an artistic impulse or pursuit of craft perfection ?
There are so many extra things that can be done in camera just as much in the darkrooms you list.
why most of the efffects that are posible in the darkrooms can be done in camera.Please try and give me a Challenge if you cannot agree.
Well goodluck in your pursuit of "art"

Some of my favourite shots have been accidents.
as have some of the best/worst inventions of the world.
So I believe intention should never outweigh benifit.

Most art involves a lot of craft. Some can master the craft but lack the last ounce of inspiration or whatever that mysterious "something" is, and never reach the level of art. This is surely so in photography. At least if you have the craft mastered, you can get lucky (I have myself). But even acknowledged artists can have an off day and produce something humdrum. So there's a grey area there between art and craft, and this is a good question to consider. Thanks to Steve for raising it.

I am afraid that photographers who haven't mastered the craft but who use post processing to try to create "works of art" seldom appear to be successful. There are honourable exceptions, but this is my general experience. And where I have been most impressed with the results of, say, PhotoShop modifications to a photograph, the photographer has usually demonstrated elsewhere in her portfolio that she has a solid grasp of the fundamentals and knows her craft.

So I'd vote for photography being a craft that genius can lift to the level of art. But the nice thing about it is that we don't have to up there in that rarefied atmosphere to really, really enjoy it. Thank goodness!

>> Is what we do an art, is it a craft or is it somewhere in between?

please someone tell me WHY my well thought out input is being so @#$%%$# trunkated???must IPAY to give an opinion??

Jane,
Sounds more like a bug to me - I'd send an e-mail to suggest@usefilm.com describing the problem - include what you exactly what you were trying to post!

Chris

Such an old question, such an important question for those who appreciate art and wonder what it is, such an interesting question.

I place photography in a group with other visual arts that seek to create the illusion of three-dimensionality on a two-dimensional surface -- drawing and painting to keep it simple. In my opinion, painting is the highest art form in the group because of the immediacy of the connection between the painter and the canvas: the painter?s vision and skill in the craft of painting is directly connected through his brain, arm and hand to the brush which is in physical contact with the canvas. Painting is about seeing and interpreting what is seen, whether what is seen is pure mental fantasy or a real-life sunny corn field. There are absolutely no limitations on the artist?s vision. It?s entirely up to him what his picture will contain. It depends entirely upon his skill in the craft of painting whether he can realize on canvas the vision he has in his mind. Whether the painting which results is a true work of art then depends upon the people who see the painting. That?s an enormous discussion which can be left aside for the purposes of this discussion.

Like painting, photography is about seeing. But pure photography, by which I mean an image on a negative to make things simple, is by nature a lesser art form than painting. This is because a number of intrinsic limitations come into play in making the photographic image. First among these is the fact that a camera is used to make the image, a mechanical device which is designed to create an image using various technologies that work according to various known physical properties: the glass technology of the lens, which conducts light in certain ways, and so on. Second among these is the film (or CCD in digital cameras), a man-made substance which absorbs light in known ways according to the physical properties of the constituent components. Each type of film is designed to work within a certain ?visual range?: the consituent chemical components are assembled to create some kind of baseline standard result. There are other limitations as well: the chemical process of developing the film works within the film?s designed visual range; the process of print-making brings in further limitations -- the type of paper and its characteristics, the nature of the enlarging equipment and so on. By its nature, photography involves many degrees of separation between the artist?s mental vision and the final printed result on paper. The greatest limitation of all lies in the fact that photography records the physical world. The camera must be pointed at something.

That said, it is possible for someone to become a true artist by working with the medium of photography. A photographer who intimately understands all the degrees of limitation that are inherent in the medium can, with great skill, turn these limitations into advantages. He can work within them to surmount them. This is where skill at the craft of photography comes into play and there is no limit to the level of skill that can be achieved when looking at the process as a whole. It is possible to realize the most extravagant and creative of ideas photographically if one has sufficient skill in the craft.

Just recently in Paris, I saw an exhibition of photographs by ?The New York Circle?. The photograph that impressed me the most was the famous picture of the Flat-Iron Building by Edward Steichen, taken in 1898 if I remember correctly. In the foreground, we see a transom cab -- the top hat of the cab driver, his whip, the cab?s lantern -- silhouetted darkly within tree branches. Behind, we see a ghostly image of the Flat-Iron Building, looming up like a spectre. The atmosphere of this picture is pure magic, heightened by the beautiful blue toning that works with the greys and blacks to produce an image of the most subtle luminosity. Graphically, it is a sublime work. A few hours later, I again stood for a long time in front of one of my favourite drawings: one of Degas? chalk drawings of women bathing, seen from behind. Because this work of art by Degas is a chalk drawing, I know that as an artistic achievement it occupies a higher place than the photograph of the The Flat-Iron Building by Steichen. However, looking at the two pictures, I did not compare them in this way and there is no need to. I appreciated them both immensely: one as a photograph, one as a drawing.

Photography is only about 180 years old, an infant. As a potential art form, I believe that its potential has barely been scratched. With photography now being revolutionalized by digital technology whether we like it or not, it is an exciting time to plunge deep into the craft of photography, both digital and film, in order to realize our ideas in ways that have never been seen before -- in any medium.

A camera is very much like a pen. It can be used to tell a story, or create a picture. In the wrong hands it can become a weapon. Is photography an art or a craft???? Depends very much who is holding the camera.

"Is what we do an art, is it a craft or is it somewhere in between?"

It is not worth worrying about.

similar to a painter that use different brushes, a photographer use different equipments in order to get best shot.

Nuno M.	David R.	Robert C.	Danny P.	Francesco M.	Steven H.	Roberto A.	Avi .

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Your photo sharing community!