The Art

[Petraio Prime]

A photograph is not and cannot be a work of art.

If you start manipulating the crap out of it, it starts becoming 'art-like' and becomes less and less a photograph.

That doesn't mean it becomes 'better'.

To say a photograph is a work of art means that you don't know how to use and apply the word 'art' properly.

C'mon now, Petraio... this is over the top even for you. Sadly, as only one person out of billions, you don't get the exclusive privilege to define for the rest of the world what constitutes 'art'. Leave that up to the dictionaries, buddy.

According to Merriam-Webster:

art
Pronunciation: \ˈärt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Now... according to definition 4a you're... well... basically wrong. Good photography is conducted through "the conscious use of skill" and "creative imagination"... the end result is certainly an "aesthetic object"...and the "works so produced" are clearly photographs.

Though, if I've pegged you already... and I think I have... you will nonetheless insist that you know better than both I and the rest of the English-speaking world.

See "Why Photography is not Art" by Roger Scruton. It can be found in a couple of places; the best source is in his book The Aesthetic Understanding (1983).

The definition you cite is so vague it could be applied to anything.

Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).

 

[bentcountershaft]

Many moons ago, before I ever considered picking up a camera, I was an Art Major in college. Apparently I missed the day they said photographs were not art.

 

[JG_Coleman]

See "Why Photography is not Art" by Roger Scruton. It can be found in a couple of places.

The definition you cite is so vague it could be applied to anything.

I beg to differ... please do explain how it could literally be applied to anything. By this definition, the "anything" that it could be applied to would have to:

a) employ the "conscious use of skill and creative imagination"
b) most often bring about the "production of aesthetic objects"
c) should produce something reasonably called a "work"

I don't see why anything that fits this criteria shouldn't be given some credit as an 'art'.

In fact, fields such as writing don't even produce aesthetic objects, at all... yet the entire world quite unanimously agrees that poetry and song-writing is art.

So, if you retained anything of value from Scruton's book, please do convince me that it is worth reading.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Many moons ago, before I ever considered picking up a camera, I was an Art Major in college. Apparently I missed the day they said photographs were not art.

Yes, you did.

 

[white]

Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).

Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.

The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).

Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.

The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.

Perhaps I was unclear. There is no causal relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is intentional, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You don't take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a natural process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).

 

[bentcountershaft]

Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).

Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.

The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.

Perhaps I was unclear. There is no causal relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is intentional, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You don't take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a natural process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).

So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work. Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.

The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.

Perhaps I was unclear. There is no causal relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is intentional, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You don't take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a natural process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).

So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work. Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?

Of course it is.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Perhaps I was unclear. There is no causal relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is intentional, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You don't take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a natural process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).

Ahhh, you're very clear... and my suspicions have been confirmed... the source of your argument is basically sophist buffoonery. I think Merriam-Webster has put forward a rather simple and straight-forward definition that works very well... one that you seem to be reluctant to reasonably prove faulty (merely hiding behind some obscure book without further comment doesn't really qualify).

Yet here you are, arguing about "directness", "causal relationships", and drawing subjective distinctions between "artificial" and "natural". No artist cares about any of these things while they are creating art... nor do viewers care about these things while they are admiring good art. Your argument is so distant from the thing you're trying to pin down that it lacks relevance altogether.

If you truly feel that confident that photography isn't art, you ought to be able to express why in a manner that is as straight-forward as Merriam-Webster's argument to the contrary.

 

[bentcountershaft]

So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work. Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?

Of course it is.

Well gravity is a natural process, like light. What's the difference?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Perhaps I was unclear. There is no causal relationship between a painting and its 'subject matter' (the relationship is intentional, not causal). There is a direct causal relationship between a photograph and its 'subject matter'. That's what I mean. You don't take a handful of light and throw it on a piece of film. A lens does it.That makes it a natural process (optical), as opposed to an artificial one (the hand).

Ahhh, you're very clear... and my suspicions have been confirmed... the source of your argument is basically sophist buffoonery. I think Merriam-Webster has put forward a rather simple and straight-forward definition that works very well... one that you seem to be reluctant to reasonably prove faulty (merely hiding behind some obscure book without further comment doesn't really qualify).

Yet here you are, arguing about "directness", "casual relationships", and drawing subjective distinctions between "artificial" and "natural". No artist cares about any of these things while they are creating art... nor do viewers care about these things while they are admiring good art. Your argument is so distant from the thing you're trying to pin down that it lacks relevance altogether.

If you truly feel that confident that photography isn't art, you ought to be able to express why in a manner that is as straight-forward as Merriam-Webster's argument to the contrary.

That's why you need to read Scruton. This is a philosophical distinction, which is a significant one, one that photographers themselves may have had no exposure to. Photographers are not usually trained in philosophy.

My argument is straightforward. 'Art' is made by hand and has no causal link to something else. Photographs are made entirely by natural processes and have a causal link to something else that must already exist; a photograph is always of something else, and refers to something else.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So paint drip art isn't art because it's gravity doing the work. Why oh why weren't you one of my professors?

Of course it is.

Well gravity is a natural process, like light. What's the difference?

Because it doesn't refer to something else or depend on the existence of something else as its subject matter. It's not a lens.

 

[Derrel]

J.G. Coleman's allegation of sophist buffoonery rings true, methinks.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Basically, photographs differ from works of art in several important ways. The most significant is that photographs have a causal relationship to their 'subject matter' whereas works of art do not. Also, works of art are not works of nature (they are works of 'art' in the sense of 'art' meaning 'made by the hand of man'), whereas photographs are produced through natural means and in accordance with natural laws (otherwise they could not be photographs).

Photographs do not have a causal relationship with their subject matter. They do not create reality, or record reality with any kind of objectivity. The picture of the redhead you so lovingly trot out as an example of raw, unprocessed photography is just another example of processing. Chemicals produced the negative, and yet more chemicals produced the color print. But the print could be overexposed for all I know.

The last half of your comment about natural laws and such is just silly. Art is as natural and obeys the same laws as anything else. If it didn't, it would not exist because it could not.

A photograph is always of something else to which it has a causal relationship. Always. Otherwise it isn't a photograph.

 

[bentcountershaft]

That's why you need to read Scruton. This is a philosophical distinction, which is a significant one, one that photographers themselves may have had no exposure to. Photographers are not usually trained in philosophy.

My argument is straightforward. 'Art' is made by hand and has no causal link to something else. Photographs are made entirely by natural processes and have a causal link to something else that must already exist; a photograph is always of something else, and refers to something else.

That's an interesting distinction. It's a shame that it doesn't disqualify anything for being art though.