Photography is Art?

In my opinion it could be!
I like the natural ones, without any editing with adobe, picasa etc

panoramio.com/user/canadianus

Of course Photography is an Art !

I second that.

Definitely yes!
We can take pictures of thing,actually we don't see.

totally agree. but photography has various degrees, i feel depending on the photographers objectives, it makes it an open subject for discussion. eg. war images, do you call that art or another form of awareness.

Yes photography is an art, if it done in natural way.

Photography is coherenced from art and technology which complete each other. A good moment could be captured from the good angle (from side where photographer momorize this moment. It depends on the abbility of photographer itself in seeing an object). By touching of technology (adobe, etc) it can not only be a good moment but also a perfect moment..

hello, I would think that photography is certain a morden art.

the strong sense and emotion that some photograpthy offer us is a very powerful visual world. Id think the spirit gave by photos is almost the same as painting, or even more.

Photography is this generations best form of Art, like painting was in the 15th century.

I've seen great artistic photos,the led me to call Photographers Artists

I would like to come back to one of my initial questions : in which cases a photography can be considered art?
In other words, what you have to see in a photo, what you have to feel seeing it, what has the "artist" done to materialize reality into a piece of "art"?
Is emotion a key word?

Yes, photography is a great art...

Albert Alsina wrote:

I would like to come back to one of my initial questions : in which cases a photography can be considered art?
In other words, what you have to see in a photo, what you have to feel seeing it, what has the "artist" done to materialize reality into a piece of "art"?
Is emotion a key word?

Hey Albert

You just stole the words from my "mouth"

What makes photography an art, in my humble opinion, is when the photographer manages to capture and convey an emotion.

hi..
i think it is not only a art .it is technical ability also..

Hi,

Yes,

I am sure,

In my opinion, photography is a great art i like it.




Thanks & Regards
Robert
[Moderated: No free advert]

Of course it's art.  Look at Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, Diane Arbus, Imogen Cunningham...

yes it is an art...because a great photo will feel the originality or when i see a photo if the photographer have the great skill of photography then i feel i just standing in front of that scenery..

Of course it is an Art! Photography is the art of creating pictures. As simple as that.

yes .Not every one can photograph well.

Photography is no more or less art than any other creative endeavor!  I remodeled a home once and the new owner called my efforts a "work of art."  Indeed, it was!  I especially love photography and writing, though.  In retrospect, some things I've done I would now label as bad art, but some was really quite good.  Either way, it was art!

Ron

Definitely an art! Art is about expression and in the way a photographer captures a subject they are expressing their views on the world. We agree that painting is an art, yet anyone can paint. There is a value placed on each piece, however. The value depends on the individuals who are viewing and appreciating it. At what point is a painting, photograph, song or food art? At the point someone decides it is. I've seen some terrible things that I think a small child could do that were considered art.
Why do you ask Albert? Just curious.

oH yes it's art !

I think the deeper question here is... What IS ART and does photography meet the criteria?

I believe any work that can evoke real emotion and build a relationship between the Observer and the Observed is art.

That is a broad definition but definitely one that includes photography.

Albert Alsina wrote:

I would like to come back to one of my initial questions : in which cases a photography can be considered art?
In other words, what you have to see in a photo, what you have to feel seeing it, what has the "artist" done to materialize reality into a piece of "art"?
Is emotion a key word?

if you do it right, if it's unique, it's a form of art..

Absolutely an art. Remember it is the person who sees the image first, the camera is really a device to capture the image.

Fine art photography refers to photographs that are created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as artist.

Definitely photography is an Art, as mentioned by Albert and Haf. If you can make a person lost in his own thoughts while looking at a picture, be it emotion, composition, perfect timing,etc Basically if you have the talent to make something out of nothing that is art, please add on.

aikenjones wrote:

Yes photography is an art, if it done in natural way.

Even though technology is involved you see the picture in your head first, so can that be considered as natural? Yes i do agree with the fact that you have to execute your visions using technology but isnt that skill rather than art? Would love to hear from you guys, what are your thoughts on this? Correct me if i am wrong.

Cheers.

Real emotion in photography. In human especially.

The irony both photographers & artists don't consider photography as a normal form of art. Even not all photography contests are based on basic art principles or theories i.e. golden ratio, balance, rhythm, or contrast but they are judged according to the technology technique.

People consider photography art while specialists never agree it may be art.

what make people get confused when an artist or talented person fallowing art theories & principles uses the camera as his art method & tool to represent his ideas, the same as sculptor choose stone to be the material showing his imagination. which is considered by some "not all" critics to be a form of experimental modern art and not a classic art form.

For People it is art cause most people don't know the secrets behind it; but for specialist it is just a work.

Dear Fellows would you like to join me in this Critic Art session..

Returning back to the old days; when i was freshman in art education faculty. this question was a big dilemma as people are divided between is photography is an art or not..

I would now explain both point of views..

Back to year Zero when the first camera was invented it wasn't considered an art at all.. cameras at that time was just capturing a real snap of life without giving any meaning either human or personal touch.. try to look at any black and white images that belong to 18xx years it just describe a scene but no feeling in the images.

can you see how every one is looking to a different direction.. this is not art for sure

even the photographers them self was very strict about their job and used to make all photos look similar plus it was typical science; as to get a correct photo -had you realize that i didn't say a good cause at that time photos was valued  by fallowing the rules or not- so to get a correct photo you need to used many chemicals to produce the film and for for post production also and those chemicals should be applied in special environment - the red lighted room do you remember it- and you need to get license and trained to work as a photographer. it wasn't an easy job - like scuba diving now days.




At that time any photographer result would be very similar to any another photographer with a very few differences. So at the early stage photography was a science and mechanical production task.. the same as weaving textiles for example.
on the other hand at the same time; when a painter draw a photo realistic painting - a photos that capture life the same as camera do without any feelings- critics and other artists beside all society wouldn't name him a creative artist or even an artist he would be considered a talented worker how can paint and  they didn't consider even that kind of paintings to be art. by the  way this point of view still exist till now and critics would always down value any painting that capture real life without a feeling saying it is just a camera work.

As time goes.. photographers try to get out the box as all humans do so they work more on giving a personal touch to be differentiated from the others so their work would stand out in the crowd. Here photography was considered a industry production with art touch and sense from the photographer who was consider as a worker not as an artist. this point of view was true for a long time as long as creating a photo is depending on chemistry so a good photographer would have be a good chemistry background.

At that time only hand paintings was sold, widely possessed in the society and found in art galleries while photographs was only done upon special request to keep a family history and later on to keep history of the society itself.
This situation had lasted for a very long time with a little changes for example the photo-montage was invented and that was considered more art than pure science.. and the same time the photographers tend to experiment their abilities and to change the normal subject finding new fields to explore adding their special touch and perspective.. so we would notice photography had entered the world of newspapers adding a new meaning to the text..and here the competition begin to start as the perfect photo would raise the paper sales.. and this is the real start of art race.. as all are looking for a good photo from a different point of view and perspective that is not repeated before to give the paper readers the impressions they were at the place of the photo.

This point was the rise of the photojournalist career and art of photography from the point of view of media people however still artists and critics didn't recognize this is a form of art..

Through this long journey the photography technology had changed a lot till KODAK camera & film are invented which turn art to be an easy task any body can do without much care for old photography techniques. while the photography technology grows and the more easier to get a photo the more photography wasn't considered a science or industry .. but still wasn't art yet.

old kodak camera

modern kodak camera

the process film a revolution in the industry

The big move that had take the photograph from being art was being digital.. any one now can grab his cellphone or any digital camera and probably would get error free nice picture.  just less than a flash of light most digital cameras do the math for you.. and you get the final output ready for print without any prior knowledge of any since.

The more the technology involved the less art inside the game..

I know this was a long history lesson.. i guess you now imagine how much we artists had suffered to become what we are now.

@ Miro : The Artist -

Top notch!! Those cameras are collectables now! What a great invention that made photography create an amazing art!

Do you know how many photos you have taken up until now? You will have to take thousands of pictures to reach a point where you can begin to evaluate them objectively. Looking upon your photos as if you were looking at them through someone else’s eyes is a good way to give yourself constructive criticism.

definitely photography is an art, it captures the best moment of someones living, the best part on earth that only pictures can caprture from far to near and the amazing and wonderful live color that gives meaning as the same as painting.

Photography is Art?

I think so - The black & White photos definitely adds art to the picture.

It,s an art full of pleasure infact.

people says its the simplest way, focusing, taking the right dimension, the perfect distance, the perfect motion and the color combination.

It's art. It's even a gift to some. Not everyone who takes photos can see what the other photographers can see. It's about perspective and timing.