Is photography art? Does it matter? Arguments for and against photos being works of art.

[@Simonsutak]

Here are time links to the different sections: 00:00 Introduction 01:22 Dictionary definitions 03:34 Semantics 06:22 Snaps, nice photos or works of art? 07:18 Aesthetics - Beauty 08:45 Aesthetics - Visual impact 11:52 Aesthetics - Artistic value 16:36 Monetary value 21:22 The photographer matters 22:33 Original photos vs. prints 23:42 Original photos vs. processed and AI images 26:15 Conclusions

[@marcbeebe]

Photography is a medium. What you do with it determines whether or not it's art. Just as with paint or pencil.

[@Mekchanoid]

Sounds good. Except 'what you do with it' doesn't determine whether it is art. Your aims may be lofty but, like the creator of Monkey Jesus, your results may fall well short. External factors will ultimately decide. Is a greater proportion of photos non-art when compared to painting? I would say yes. Photography is democratic exactly because it is easy and throwaway.

[@pompeii357]

A camera is a device just like a brush or a pencil or a pen. You can paint a wall or write a receipt, draw a picture or write a book.

[@Mekchanoid]

Except for the enormous difference in technical skill involved.

[@christophermorris7616]

Brilliantly explained and presented 🍃

[@tobycunningham797]

Thank god a discussion on photography as art that has mentioned ‘fine art photography’. Not all paintings or sculptures are art and art can include installations as well as paintings and sculptures. I agree with your analysis, I am trying to be an artist, using photography, but I don’t think I am making art and I don’t know if I would know it if I did. I do think that photographers who write off that they don’t like or ‘get’ might be missing the point that they sound like the art critics who say photography can’t be art. I think an artist must have something to say (intention), uniqueness helps (and is hard in photography) but isn’t essential and that the art should speak for itself. I also wonder if the piece of art is the negative or the print - as AA said the negative is the score and the print the performance. Excellent presentation, thank you Toby

[@Mekchanoid]

I'd say that 'fine art photography' is a photography movement that mostly recycles kitsch. It can be technically incredibly sophisticated but the messaging is rarely anything beyond the superficial beauty of the subject or technique.

[@GS-vb3zn]

Thanks for a very enjoyable and thoughtful video. It reinforces my argument when this topic has come up. Is photography art? Yes, it can be. Is painting art? Yes, it can be. Not all photographs are art (the world is chock full of crap photos) and, to me, the same can be said of painting or sculpture.

[@rapido5984]

The golf pic at 20:20 is art. I don't care or know about golf. I don't know the photographer. Regardless of all that, I recognize the value of that photograph.

[@JamesSDavis]

I would say that the biggest contributor to being able to define if a thing is art is the intention. If you set out to create a piece of art then it is a piece of art. That’s not to say it’s a good piece. There is of course the subjective appreciation of a thing that you may consider a thing to have artistic merit, even if the creator themself had no intention of creating a piece of art. What I would call “found art”. To say a photo is not a piece of art because it’s “just” capturing what is there, I feel is to misunderstand the process. I have taken photos that have taken hours of preparation and before I click the shutter. With regard to post processing i stick to only what used to achieved in a darkroom with the basic equipment (contrast, dodge, burn etc) But any processing that is not fully automated to the point of it not being the artist doing it is still part of the artistic process in my opinion.

[@chrisnovakowski9827]

I agree, if art is the intent, then it is art

[@thebackyardbrewer5611]

The art world lost all its credibility to call anything art when the banana was taped to a wall. That was the point IMHO when the establishment lost any right to police or gatekeep "art"

[@ChrisThe1]

What‘s funny is that such modern art was created in response to excessive control of the establishment on what‘s art

[@sprouting_lady]

This is my issue wit the whole debate. The definition of “art” is always limitlessly broad, only until some snobs decide they want to gatekeep something they look down their nose at. In this case, frankly it seems like a lot of people never got past the initial “photography is going to obsolete painting, so it’s not REALLY art!” Moral Panic of the late 19th century that pictorialosm was a response to. The photography world has long since moved on, but the bruised ego in the Fine Art world never really seemed to heal.

[@susanorourke6868]

As a professional commercial and "fine art" photographer, I have my own questions. Museums in Europe decided that photography was "fine art" around 1830 when Fox Talbot started producing permanent images. To the best of my knowledge, the first time a major US museum showed photos as fine art was MOA in NYC in the mid 1950. It due primarily to the efforts os Beaumont Newhall and John Szarkowski.. I was happy to think od my own work from age 50 to age 60 and then, began to realize that it was increasing difficult to do anything new/original. Today, when everyone has a cell phone that contains, incidentally, a marvelous camera. There are masses of images produced by those users,/photographers that are not even "anecdotal" art but just Hallmark Postcards as they are done with no thought or purpose or intent. As to the issue of multiple reductions, I still rely on the Walter Benjamin work "The Work of Art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction." If the producer has any ethics, copies will be signed and numbered and catalogued. If the producer is too dumb or ill educated to recognize artists rights and originality. well, let them go and ignore them

[@leirumf5476]

In defense of photojournalism and documentarism, it's also art. You're not just taking a photo of an event, you're doing so in a way that will hopefully convey an emotional in whoever is going to see the photo afterwards. The fact someone is going to pay you later is no different than renaissance painters making portraits or paintings for patrons back in the day. Saying it can't be art because it's just a rendition of real events that someone paid for is ignoring a big chunk of the arts from ye old time.

[@ReadIcculus93]

I'm a photographer who mainly focuses on high schools, I do a lot of senior portraits, photos for the yearbook, and sports photos. The process means more than the product. If my process is to just crank out as many photos in the shortest amount of time, not worrying about quality, lighting, backgrounds, etc, I would make a lot of money, but is that art? If my process is to create lasting images that tell stories, worried about lighting, worried about backgrounds, not worrying about the time. Would that then be considered art? I tell people, I dont take photos for people to just enjoy today. These photos are taken for people to enjoy from now on... When you turn 50, thumb through your senior year book, that is the power of photography.

[@kirkpine8342]

All very valid opinions! The impact of number of images we see every day diminishes how special photographs may be. Perhaps the fact that media makes these things so available?

[@ChasWG]

Hmmmmm... I need to think on this. Thank you for a wonderful video!

[@meatbyproducts]

When I teach photography I tell everyone "anyone can take a picture, but it takes talent and skill to take a photograph " sometimes shortened to "anyone can take a picture, but not everyone can make a photograph ". Photography is an art. Pictures and snaps shots are great for history, but when you have a photograph and it evkoes an emotion or makes people want more, it is just like all other forms of art.

[@stuartlauchlan7061]

A genuinely fascinating video Simon, which caught me on a number of fronts. I went through a period of photographing clouds, as I love the effects light and mood can give. I also love that it can never really be repeated, it's a one off image, never to be seen again. So the work of Stieglitz really caught my attention. I've also been guilty of questioning 'what is art' sometimes. I visited Tate Modern and amongst the exhibitions found Ceal Floyer 'Monochrome till receipt' a challenge. I don't mean to pick out one item for criticism, as I do believe that art is in the eye of the beholder, but for me personally could a till receipt from a shopping trip be considered art? Perhaps it can and my views should change. As for photography, I will always love the process of taking an image. The planning behind it, the travel to the chosen area, the composition decision and the wait on the light, that let's be honest usually never comes. I love the time I do get to spend taking an image. Whether it's considered art doesn't really matter to me personally, I get so many other benefits from just being out there, that it will never lose its appeal. Thanks again for sharing and I'm genuinely intrigued to hear others thoughts on the subject.

[@usermandude]

Art is such a fuzzy thing! Sometimes you can look at a thousand supposed "proper" artworks and get nothing out of them and sometimes you stumble upon one random painting or image that just resonates. We decide for ourselves, because we are an integral part of the experience of it and no one else can experience the way we do. Also the whole presentation and reputation surrounding it is so influential. Get some random, just averagely interesting image you took off the harddrive and have it hung up on some big and empty white wall in a museum or in some fancy villa, there you go. Reversely, imagine an image taken by Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson sitting inside of your PC, next to 100GB of other images, or inside a crowded photo album, directly next to 5 other 10x15 prints. Such a fun topic!

[@kimbeijar5702]

It is an artform for some photographers. It all comes down to who you are as an person. How you perceive beauty and interest. No need to define whether it is an artform or not. For some of us creative beauty will always come first in creating a photo.

[@laszlobacs9347]

Interesting topic to be debated, and it would be great to see the outcome. I don't think there is a simple yes or no answer to the "is photography art" question. Who is considered an artist by creating photography, also could be debated just like in many artforms. I think photography is an artform that can create artwork. Does it matter? For some yes, and for others, it doesn't. Great video, as always. Thank you.

[@sammys_erLeben]

Thank you very much for this wonderful contribution, which has made me reconsider my instinctive answer of ‘yes’. In response to a comment here, I'll try to see it this way with a quote (of unknown origin): "Photography is a genre of fine art and literally means drawing with light."

[@AndyClement]

Enjoyed the video. Love your perspective and your thoughts on the subject. Do I consider my photography art? I have several images I've taken and have printed out and are hanging up in my house next to paintings that I have purchased by local "artists". Yes, I think I photography is art and photography can be art.

[@hfvhf987]

If a giant metal chicken perched on the middle of a roundabout can be called art then so can photography! Seriously though, if i put artistic impression on a photo i take then who is anyone to tell me it's not art? No one, that's who! Art IS subjective ! If it is art to one then it is art. Period.

[@heinzhagenbucher4714]

So very well said. I love my photography too, but it's by no means art, nor a good photograph. I still like to hang it up on my own walls.

[@Herfinnur]

I think one consideration you could have touched upon (although you sort of did with your point about just how many photos we’re exposed to by the hour), is what mental collection of works in each category individual people subconsciously hold for symbolic reference for individual word-concepts. I think people have nothing but the most impactful and iconic pieces of art that shaped their early life inside the mental box labelled “Art”. The individual art mediums inside that box in turn not only get a universal pass, but by their direct “Art” association get populated only by the most iconic works that person has experienced. I mean, how many people of any go straight to birthday card illustrations or tapestry patterns in their heads when the word “Painting” or “Drawing” comes up? The word “photography” on the other hand might consist mostly of social media posts, tabloid photos, sports photos, toiletry, food and travel commercials, video thumbnails and film and TV posters. To combat that disparity, a more productive and reproducible baseline comparison could be curating a dozen or so works from each genre, all representing the subjectively absolute worst, most trivial works from each genre and deciding if they still could be considered art, purely based on their medium, before any further discussion was had

[@perjrgensen5660]

Thank you for another nice video wire a message. 🙏 Of cource photos is Art. Art is different forms of human activity based on technical skills, imagination, intuition, idea and emotional force, resulting in a product - a work of art. Dońt listen to the arts snobs. 🙏

[@marklindquist6905]

The reality is, that nearly ALL photographers, not unlike other artists working in craft media, such as jewlers, glass blowers, woodturners, bladesmiths, potters, er um, ceramic artists, weavers, er um, fiber artists, etc., all ride in the back of the Art bus and drink from “Craft Only” fountains. Eventually, it really won’t matter though, as similarly the music world has had upheavals and eventually fusion. Still, rarely is hip hop viewed in the same context as the “High Arts” of classical music, nor is Jazz, Rock, Blues, Country, etc., etc. The hegemonies of hierarchies exist to guard vaults. The real money is in art, period. Wishing it would change will not make it so, no matter how well intentioned.

[@Vincent112june]

The main problem is when we have the Arts establishment making decisions to exclude photography. Something less of a problem in the US that here on this side of the Atlantic.

[@yuriythebest]

Awesome video! I think, in terms of "gut feeling" in regards to what is art is it's aesthetic/impactfulness/beauty multiplied by how difficult it was to make. By difficult here I mean not necessarily that you needed to scale mount Everest, could be that you exited your house and took a photo just as someone was tripping over or something. If Ai generated photos took more time and effort, like if you had to "jack in" you brain matrix-style to a lucid dream/ dreamworld to make the photo that was made from elements of your subconscious, that would make it 'art." OR, if tomorrow using some genetic modification everyone could unlock the ability to easily draw photo-realistic paintings that would 'cheapen' it and it would become less 'art.' I think "plentifulness" is the enemy of "art" - like with photographers that discover a scenic location and then hundreds of people go there to take the same photo, or just the ease of making generic photos in general. That's why one of my main 'techniques' is to make my photos look NOT like google street view.

[@davefrancis2581]

You should go on tour. I would pay to see this

[@roybixby6135]

Like an ancient vase - photos can be both useful and artistic...

[@Scatup]

Digitising old holiday snaps from the 1960's two slides got stuck together and I got art.

[@kalinmir]

I call myself artist for legal reasons as creation of art is protected in our constitution while translating photons to electrons isn't (or any other label you want to come up with)...for what I do there mostly isn't a difference until there are people in those photos

[@fintonmainz7845]

The whole "art" thing is overblown. It's just a form of human expression.

[@xcx8646]

Some are, some aren't. The Venn diagram for this overlaps of course, because there isn't universal agreement - which is absolutely fine. Human opinion varies, and art (music, beauty, preferences etc.) are all subject to opinion, even if a broad consensus is possible.

[@ReadIcculus93]

Art is something that I cannot atrribute to my own work, it must be given that title by someone else. I just focus on the things I like to focus on, and hope that others like it too. But if someone came along and claimed my work wasn't art, they'd be just as right as someone who came along and considered it a masterpiece. The problem with art today has nothing to do with the artist themselves and what they do and dont do, what medium they use or not use. The problem is the lack of appreciation of art by many. They see something beautiful and go "oh how beautiful" they see something they dont understand and they assume is garbage. The first glance should draw our attention, but why do we look at certain works longer than others? Why can one man sit in front of the mona lisa and stare at it for days, weeks even, while another man takes a selfie for social media and doesn't look at it for more than a minute? There lies the answer for why art is dead. The artist cannot make art for an unsympathetic audience, much as an author cant write novels for illiterate people.

[@willemvandeursen3105]

A difficult topic... I think photos are, but not every photo is aesthetic, and thus not art. Off topic (a bit), there was Gabriele Di Matteo. He painted historic moments, true to photographs that had made. F.i.; Jackie Kennedy and her bodyguards on the back of the open Cadillac moments after her husband was shot; everyone knows that one. (Story has it that she was actually trying to salvage pieces of John's brains, brave woman!) Gabriele's gimmick: he rendered all persons in the nude. Di Matteo is forgotten now, and you're lucky if you can find a few of his 'historic nudies' in Google Images. At the time, I was so smart to download many dozens of them, but unfortunately I cannot show them here...

[@thomasclark631]

Photography is an art if intended.

[@marklindquist6905]

Buy a camera, and you’re a photographer. Buy a violin, and you have a violin. (Anonymous)

[@nibiruresearch]

What a silly question. First we must make a distinction between news photography or the photo's that record an event and the photos that are created by the photographer and that are unique because of the framing and lighting. It is art in both cases.

[@eklatist]

Photography can be art, because anything can be art. The aesthetic quality of a photography does not determine if it is art or not, it´s it intent and context. Skill and imagination play no role in finding out if it is art or not, it might only play a role in finding out if it is good art or not.

[@armouros]

everything is art.........and when evrything is art nothing is

[@LJLeeTV]

photography is photography

[@steveshadowphoto9346]

Yes.

[@perjrgensen5660]

With 😊

[@mox.kartal]

Yes and yes.

[@kaczynski2333]

It can be. But no, it's really not important - art is subjective.

[@MikaLoka-df8pn]

photo is art or no art whatever but one thing it is for sure its a memory a moment in time personal opinion I really dont like the word art its empty

[@timauger]

Very thought-provoking. But asthetic is not a word.

[@markstephens6238]

Your right but Aesthetic and Aesthetics are words. They can be adjectives, adverbs and nouns. Simon uses and spells them correctly.

[@charlieribeiro6343]

When one accepts what art 'is/isn't' in this age then photography is as much art as some conceptual consideration. Frankly I think the term art is meaningless as the form has moved so far away from its original meaning. Hijacked by the conceptualists and snobs it's now all about feelings and thoughts and the craft has been lost; but then I'm an old fart, so what do I know.

[@StanleyKubick1]

some photography is art. wedding photography isn't

[@Herfinnur]

What about painted wedding portraits?

[@pompeii357]

Photography don't create an image it's takes an image not like painting and sculpture, when the artist creates something that nit existed before,the hand of "God"is missing.

[@paulstevenkelly]

Yes, of course it is. Painting is dead.

[@anamorphicalan]

很有意思，no photography is not art but can be as other forms.

[@Notemug]

Les dix arts modifier 1er art : l’architecture14 2e art : la sculpture14 3e art : les « arts visuels », qui regroupent la peinture, le dessin14, la photographie15, le graphisme, la gravure, la sculpture, le web design, et bien d’autres répertoriés ici 4e art : la musique14 5e art : la littérature, qui regroupe la poésie, les romans et tout ce qui se rattache à l'écriture14 6e art : les « arts de la scène », qui regroupent la danse16, le théâtre17, le mime et le cirque[réf. nécessaire] 7e art : le cinéma (dans lequel on inclut de manière générale le long-métrage et le court-métrage, mais aussi d'autres œuvres audiovisuelles comme les séries télévisées et téléfilms dont les exigences dans la mise en scène et le scénario se rapprochent de celles du cinéma au sens strict) 8e art : les « arts médiatiques », qui regroupent la radio et la télévision18 9e art : la bande dessinée18 10e art : les jeux vidéo19 et le multimédia18

[@yuriythebest]

Awesome video! I think, in terms of "gut feeling" in regards to what is art is it's aesthetic/impactfulness/beauty multiplied by how difficult it was to make. By difficult here I mean not necessarily that you needed to scale mount Everest, could be that you exited your house and took a photo just as someone was tripping over or something. If Ai generated photos took more time and effort, like if you had to "jack in" you brain matrix-style to a lucid dream/ dreamworld to make the photo that was made from elements of your subconscious, that would make it 'art." OR, conversely, if tomorrow using some genetic modification everyone could unlock the ability to easily draw photo-realistic paintings that would 'cheapen' it and it would become less 'art.' I think "plentifulness" is the enemy of "art" - like with photographers that discover a scenic location and then hundreds of people go there to take the same photo, or just the ease of making generic photos in general. That's why one of my main 'techniques' is to make my photos look NOT like google street view.