What do you guys think? Is photography really art?

I ask because I read a post on Reddit and someone writes "my sister was always the pretty one" and then posts a picture she took of her looking all introspective in the forest on a swing, in a red coat. Many people were commenting that it was art and that it didn't matter if her sister was "the pretty one" because she "obviously had talent" when it came to photography.

So, this got me thinking, is photography really art?

Don't get me wrong, I personally love photography and think it's a great past time, but I don't really think it's art. In essence, photography is simply the capturing of reality through a lens. It doesn't take any sort of skill, so anyone can do it. Really, so long as you have a good quality camera and a quick trigger-finger, you can be a photographer. In this sense, photography is not art. Art is the physical creation and alterations of realism/creation. For example, painting a scene of a snowy mountain or something is art because you are physically capturing the essence of reality and nature onto a canvas -- it takes your personal skill. Another example would be like abstract/cubism/etc. where the artist doesn't really capture reality, but their thoughts (eg. Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory" painting obviously isn't real life, but a piece that captures his thoughts).

Photography doesn't do any of this. It's more automated. You just press the shutter button and you have captured a scene in less than a second. Nothing in doing that takes any sort of skill. Sure, a photographer can go to some dynamic angles, different elevations, use different techniques with focus, etc. but it's not art to me.

The only case where photography is art is when the environment is set up. So, when you're using a model and have them in a specific setting, with a specific background, with a certain color palette, certain lighting, etc. Where everything on camera is fabricated through the photographer himself. That takes skill. Being able to get your vision laid out in front of you and capturing it with a camera. That's because it took the photographer's vision, to influence the onlooker with their perspective and what they want you to see through the alterations of virtually every variable in the photograph. You can't do that with any photography that isn't studio photography. By this I mean nature photographs. Nature cannot be altered very much. Sure, you can take a picture with different lighting through the day, but it's nothing you can manually change. You can't change the color palette of nature, you can't move the trees into a different formation, or make the ocean look a bit saltier, you can only snap a shot of what you are given. Virtually unchangeable, hence requiring no skill.

I don't know, what do you guys think? Is photography really art? Is some photography art, or is it all considered art? Does it really take skill? Can anyone do it?

I'm not compleltely knowledgeable on everything art, but I think it depends on the person if they consider photography art or not. Some people like to look more deeply into photographs than others and they can sometimes find meaning and what the particular photograph is trying to portray.


Edited for grammatical errors.

Yes.... it definitely is. http://www.screencuisine.net/hlcomic/index.php?date=2005-05-08

It's purely subjective. I personaly think art can be anything, as long as it's art in the eyes of the beholder.

To sum up a side note I left in the original post, art, to me, is supposed to be something done to relay either a message or perspective of the artist. So, yes, nature photography can be considered art in very rare cases for example, a photo looking through an old cracked window, framed by a peeling rotten wall, looking out unto a scene of children playing in the sand in a park could send a quite interesting message, dependent on how you interpret it. If that were my creation (I just thought it up, didn't actually take the picture) I would have a description of something summing up what I think represents (which I would say could represent how in even the worst of circumstances there is still a form of hope and happiness somewhere). That type of photo, despite having a lack of artistic alterations (eg. setting, lighting, etc.) could still be artistic because I am purposefully using that scene and that framework to depict my message. That is art.

Now compare that to a picture of a skyline, or a lightning strike. Is that art? I personally don't think there's anything artistic about a simple lightning strike or city lights, it's just "stuff" that doesn't really send a message. It's only art if the artist is trying to tell the viewer something.

I define art as something that is subjective. Paintings are art, clothing is art, religion is art. So is photography. Mathematics is not art, however, as it deals in certainties rather than opinions.

Yes it can be art. When it is taken to capture a moment of beauty or to convey a meaningful message. Then it is clearly art. Is scratchings of charcoal art? Just because a tool differs does not change the end result. Composition is still a factor.

That is a pretty huge oversimplification, comparable to saying "Anyone can hit a drum and make a noise, thus being a drummer takes no skill". While being a photographer may not have the obvious creative of elements of say, being a sculptor or a painter, it is quite a bit harder than it looks. As someone who has spent much of the last two years trying to improve at it and studying the photography of others, i can tell you that it is far more complex than one may think and can be incredibly moving.

If anything, your example is an oversimplification of my reasoning.

Drumming obviously takes skill because it is up to the drummer to maintain beat, tempo, etc. Drumming is the core of music because in bands that utilize drummers, they are use to keep the beat of the song. There is a lot of counting involved and you can't make music with a drum without playing it properly. Otherwise it's just a bunch of loud bangs.

Photography doesn't take any of that skill. Granted, a photographer may need patience in order for a certain event to capture, but it's nothing more that just waiting and snapping when it comes to nature. You can't control any variables in nature like color and placement, making studio photography the only "true" form of art when it comes to the subject.

Tell me, I'd love to know, what is there to study in the work of other photographers if those photographers are nature photographers. You just aim and shoot at the scene, you don't do any other work. I'm not trying to sound rude with that question, I'd genuinely like to know. If you're a photographer of people, then you're already in my art-boat. I consider the photography of fabricated scenes and the use of models to be true photography because those are variables you control. A sculptor controls how much clay, what kind of clay, if they'll even USE clay. They control the shape, the color, the size, the idea, everything about their sculpture. So does a painter, and a musician. A photographer controls nothing unless they work in a type of studio, or use a model.

I'm aware of how much skill being a drummer takes, I actually happen to be one of those too That having been said, I have to say, I find your definitioon of what constitutes art to be incredibly limited. I am grateful, however that you seem to be able to willing to at least consider the possiblity that some photographers may be artists. As far as your notion that for something to be art direct control of the subject is required by the artist, in the case of some types of photography much of the challenge is trying to convey an emotion, or elicit a feeling from the viewer, by attempting to preserve a moment or scene that you have no control over.