photography as art.

[shroticg]

during the days of film exposing, there was also a controversy to grade photography as art. a painter paints with his mind with the help of colours and brush or other medium. while the notion was that since a photograph is passed thro many mechanical processes and the pictured is captured by camera, the photography is not relevant to be treated as art. however, after processing of the film many juggleries were done in the darkroom to give shape to the photograph as an art work. this was a successful technique and also during exposing of portraits, scenery, wildlife, nature, etc. without applying any darkroom technique, these photographs were master-class and not far away from the term "ART". the thing was that, that making a master photograph, the technique of human mind was involved and photographs compelled the critiques to realise the photography as Art. in variation also the word Art covers a vast range of subjects, so it was just a futile fight to term photography as Art. yousuf karsh, h.c bresson and other big names were the dignity of photography and what they produced is no less than the other art forms. besides art is immortal, and u fight for useless criticism of what is art and what is not. only the difference is that the ways of production are different, and the mind is pleased to view it. (these are my view relating to before oncoming of the digital photography and more can be written on this because of the obvious reasons). thanks.

[Asylum Steve]

Welocme, shroticg. I have to say I pretty much agree wth everything you say.

Unfortunately, with the emergence of good, cheap digital cameras (and the tons of folks using them), this argument of whether photographry is art, or how much skill is required for it to be art is resurfacing big time.

[drg]

Stieglitz told and showed us decades before the Leica Gods that photography was art both through his own work and as an agent and gallery owner. After all, Steiglitz was Adams dealer.

The mechanical process argument is an intellectual misdirection often presented for a variety reasons, few having to do with the topic at hand of photography as art. The Impressionist painters were 'faulted' for not being 'real' painters for a very similar reason. They used 'modern' store bought paint and even on occasion, perish the thought, pre stretched canvas. The results of course speak for themselves.

The process and technology arguments applied to ANY form of artistic endeavor should have ended then! The photographic technology of the miniature (35mm) format had its moment of complaint as the photographer didn't have to do anything other than press a few buttons. Someone else could do all the 'real' work from processing to printing etc. Mhmmm, sounds like most European sculptors of the 19th century who 'just' made molds and someone else actually cast, finished, and mounted that work for hire.

Inexpensive digital cameras, the virtual darkroom (computer), and new printing processes have certainly changed the photographic endeavor, but not relegated its artistic value, when present, to the scrapheap of history. After all, paint-by-numbers, connect the dots, and pre-tinted coloring books have not (yet anyway) ruined painting.