When my sons were about five and seven, I went to their bedroom and was surprised to see a toy dinosaur hanging in the doorway. Asking them why, they responded, “it is our toilet in the doorway.” This brought a smile to my face, because I remembered our recent visit to the National Gallery in Ottawa. In the Contemporary Art display, there was a toilet bowl hanging in a doorway. I had noticed this display but didn’t really have a reaction to it. However, it had obviously resonated with my son’s imaginations. This event caused me to think about my photography, could it have a similar affect on viewers. Is my work art? In this essay, I will explore these questions and confirm my belief that photography is art. In his essay, “The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art,” Jefferey Dean, asks, “What things in the world around us are correctly designated works of art?” [1] let us start with that question.
A google search for, “early cave paintings,” will show that over forty thousand years ago, humans were creating cave drawings. At a time when survival was paramount; they took time and energy to create drawings. Michelangelo, the famous sculptor, said, "I saw an angel in the stone and carved until I set it free." Throughout history, we see examples of humans driven to create objects that express an inner vision. Though I have viewed many stones, my first thought is not of an angel trapped inside. Michelangelo could have been many things, but he was driven to create great works of art. If you listen to groups of artists you may overhear comments like: “I am driven to paint”, “in my studio time is of no consequence” or “I feel best when I hold a brush filled with paint”. Is it possible that people are driven, not only to survive, but to also express their inner vision or creative force? Is art an innate need to express that vision? Is it a need to communicate?
Recently, I stood in St. Peters Basilica and viewed the “Pieta.” It is a beautiful work, but more than that it speaks to the pain felt by the mother holding her son. I could almost feel the sculpture saying, “so much pain, so much suffering.” Stand in any art gallery and you may hear comments like: “What is the artist trying to say,” “What does the painting say to you,” “How does this make you feel”, etc. These statements imply an expression of feelings or emotions. These examples, and others, lead me to the belief that art is a communication between artist and viewer.
In the article, “Painting and Photography,” by Paul Strand, the editor refers to an argument by the subject of the article that says, “Photography as an art form is only possible in a society that shares a common visual vocabulary.” [Petruck, 61] This statement, now referring specifically to photography, again connects art with communication. Terry Barrett, in his book, “Criticizing Photographs,” quotes Allen Sekula’s definition of art: “Suppose we regard art as a mode of human communication, as a discourse anchored in concrete social relations, rather than as a mystified, vaporous and ahistorical realm of purely affective expression and experience.” [144] Barrett feels this definition is persuasive. Jo Plumridge, [2] in her article, “Is Photography an Art Form,” says, “art is a subjectively biased interpretation of the artist’s vision.” All of these statements support the idea of photography as art and communication. Let us now consider the opposing view.
Jenika’s article, “Photography isn’t Art,” [1] provides arguments as to why artists may not want photography considered an art form. The first is based on the premise that too many genres considered art will dilute the value of the other forms. If we accept this proposition, then we can understand why painters and sculptors may try to discourage accepting photography as art. However, it does not consider the visual and emotional impact that photographs may offer. Limiting the number of copies of a photograph can address any financial concerns. The second argument compares the time to create a painting versus the time to create a photograph. She says, “it can take weeks to create paintings while a photograph can be made in 1/120th of a second” [Jenika]. The length of the shutter release should have no bearing on whether an image is considered art. This fleeting moment, a transition from potential to capture, is one small part of the total process. Prior to the transition, the photographer considers the scene, plans the image and makes decisions that will ensure an accurate data capture[1]. After the transition, the photographer may spend significant amounts of time considering the image, editing it and making the final print. The time spent before and after the transition is not measured in hundredths of a second, but on much longer time scales. In addition, the argument also discounts the time photographers spend learning and practicing their skills. Like a painters and sculptors, they spend many years learning before becoming a master.
Photography, perhaps different from other mediums has many applications. Scientists send probes to the heavens to capture images of stars, galaxies and other celestial bodies. Law enforcement agencies use photography to collect evidence that will support investigations. Photographs are used to record personal, business and entertainment events. The use of photography for these technical purposes may not be art, but many photographs do qualify as art. If art is a communication between artist and viewer, any medium, including photography can be art. Ultimately, I'm not even certain definitions are necessary. Labeling an object does not change the object. If a photograph evokes an emotional response, then it is art. If a photograph can motivate someone to create, then it is art. Ultimately, the question is answered by the viewer. Is photography art? Yes, I believe it is.
Bibliography
Dean, Jeffrey T. “The Nature of Concepts and the Definition of Art.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 61, no. 1, 2003, pp. 29–35., www.jstor.org/stable/1559110.
Petruck, Peninah R. Y. The Camera Viewed: Writings on Twentieth-Century Photography, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1979.
Barrett, Terry M. Criticizing Photographs: An Introduction to Understanding Images, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 2000.
Jenika. “Photography Isn’t Art.”
https://psychologyforphotographers.com/photography-isnt-art
“Is Photography an Art Form.”
Plumridge, Jo.
https://contrastly.com/photography-art-form/
[1] Modern digital cameras capture data in a file. Film cameras capture data on the film, as either a negative or a positive slide.