Amy Machmer 6:31pm, 28 August 2009, I know the answer is very personal and I understand that a lot of photographers don't like to call themselves artists etc.
The reason why I ask this question here is because you ARE photographers.
Many non-photographers quickly say, no, photography is not art - it's photography...?
The one thing that sticks in my mind though and is the basis for this question is that in Duluth there is an art teacher, teaching young students art and this teacher had absolutely no reservations in telling me that photography is not art. Painting, drawing, sculpting, writing, dancing, music - these are considered art or arts ... and yet, photography is not.
I couldn't delve deeper into this discussion with this person because we were at a family function.
But, I am very curious as to what all of you think!
Hambone Lewinski 9 years ago
Is Photography "Art"?


Amy Machmer 9 years ago
I'll reply to my own topic and say that I, in fact, disagree with the nay-sayers.
Hambone Lewinski Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Hambone Lewinski (admin) 9 years ago
WeeGee, Vera Lutter, Heni Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, William Eggleston.

Music, drawing and writing are all examples of things that can be non-art. Painting is more often art than not, mostly because it is not as utilitarian as the rest.

Your art teacher (as art teachers often are) was full of shit.

GetLex 9 years ago
Either way you put it.....

Photography is an "art form"

so photography is art
-Snapshot- 9 years ago
“Art is in the eyes of the beholder”.

If your photo convinces the beholder that it’s art, then it is, if not then it is not. That goes for paintings music and all the rest.

With that said I see a lot of art being made hear on the DPG, but others might not.
dv8mtsp 9 years ago
Socrates and Plato both argued against the artists :

"Art is powerful, and therefore dangerous Poetry, drama, music, painting, dance, all stir up our emotions. All of the arts move people powerfully."

I only quote Plato to say this, Art has been discussed and no conclusion made as of yet.

The only definition I hold art to that seem s to encompass most art.
When an objects face value *The cost of its materials" is greatly outweighed by the social value or cost people are willing to pay. I.E. How much did it cost for Ansel Adams to take his photos. How much are they worth. Its that underlying value disparity that is yet undefined that creates art no matter the medium.
fragile existence [deleted] 9 years ago
I guess it really boils down to the way that you define Art.

I don't necessarily agree with the statement above. I think regardless of cost/materials/ratios etc. I think that there is art in everything, from the buildings that we live in to the way people conversate. You just have to really look for it. Then.. (woah..tangent coming on, fair warning given....) I guess maybe it is all about photographic perception instead of photography itself as an art. I will think on that. :)

For myself, a photo that stimulates a thought, a memory, or an emotion is definitely art. No question about that. But, to reference the above, is it the perception itself that is the art, or the technical skill to capture it. Both have equal importance. Both need each other to truly create art, in any medium.... think about it.

Anyway... what was I saying? Gah!
ectro 9 years ago
I think it depends upon the reason the photograph is made. Some of my work is documentation, but nowadays the majority is art.
KAdog3 9 years ago
My sister has a collage degrea in art . She can draw and scalp but can not take a photo to save her life .
She get jeules of my photophary . Art yes!!!!
HBRstudios 9 years ago
I hope you meant sculpt. :)
Groups Beta