As we’ve seen from parts 1 and 2 of this series, photography does indeed have a home within the world of art. There are still people, of course, who will argue that “photography isn’t/can’t be art,” and that photographers “aren’t/can’t be artists” if they do only photography. Today, with the pervasiveness of Instagram and Snapchat, this attitude seems more prevalent; I have had people question why I got a studio art degree when “just anyone can do photography,” and even other artists dismiss my knowledge of art based on the fact that I chose photography over drawing, painting, or sculpture. This is why I believe writing about photography, especially the artistic aspects of it, is so important. I want people to understand that there is more to photography than simply picking up a camera and snapping a shot; photography has, however recent, a rich history, and there are many different types of photography that one can practice. So, what makes one type of photography art, but not another? Well, here is my take on the subject.
It’s complicated.
Okay, maybe that’s not the answer you wanted. But, it is an honest answer that depends a lot on who you are talking to. Many people will argue that commercial photography cannot be art because it is made to be sold (this is a thought surrounding art in general, by the way — fine artists seem to really detest commercial artists for whatever reason). However, it can be argued that there is a lot of artistic principle that goes into commercial photography; as you may recall from Part 1, art is defined as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” It takes creative skill and imagination to arrange and execute a commercial shoot, and many commercial photographers create photographs that are meant to be beautiful or to evoke emotion from the viewer. Take, for example, fashion photography (which I can’t wait to talk about with you all in a future post); while a lot of fashion photography is meant to advertise pieces from different designers, these works can still be extremely artistic and involve a lot of creativity on the part of the photographer. When we think of photographers such as Cecil Beaton, Lord Snowdon, David Bailey, and Annie Leibovitz, we think of them not only as photographers or fashion photographers, but also as artists because the beautiful compositions they create/created. Photographers of every profession use the visual elements and principles of art, the same as any other artists would; we intentionally frame images based on line, color, composition, you name it, and we still cover much of the same subject matter, such as politics or self-reflection. Do you see the complication yet?
Well, how about this, then?
Most of the art we see in our art history book was either commissioned or otherwise made to be sold. Churches paid artists to decorate their spaces with Biblical scenes; Greek and Roman politicians paid artists to make sculptures and other pieces to celebrate their rule; Andy Warhol, who is famous in the world of art and who features prominently in modern art history texts, was definitely an artist who proliferated the commercial aspect of his work. At the end of the day, artists have to make money too, and even artists who aren’t “commercial” sell their work to make money off of it. This is why I, myself, don’t understand why such a distinction is made with photography; if other artists are allowed to sell their work and still call themselves “artists,” then why can’t photographers do the same? This is a discussion that is at the very core of what Contemporary Art as a movement is about; we have a much broader idea of what is and is not art nowadays, and photography is becoming part of this discussion more and more as new technological advances are being made in the world of both art and photography.
I do not, however, think that everyone who takes a photograph is an artist, nor do I think that every photograph is a work of art.
I do believe that there is a certain amount of artistic thought that has to go into a photograph before it can be considered art (the same as with every other medium — I do not think that just any painting or sculpture is art, either, you know, for the record). Circling back to our previous discussion, while a lot of commercial work does involve a degree of artistic thought and ability, not all commercial photography is art to me. Some commercial work involves a deeply thought-out concept, and that, I do believe, can be considered art. But do I believe that photographs such as senior or family portraits taken in a studio on a generic set are art? Eh, not really, and the reason boils down to the fact that these shoots, while meaningful, are not driven by a concept or meant to evoke emotion beyond making family members happy (which is valuable and nothing to shake your head at, but I think most of us will agree that it isn’t quite art in the proper sense (well, yet, anyway, because, hahaha, old paintings of families have been included in art history texts due to their historical importance, so perhaps this will happen with family photographs in the future… you know, perhaps? I digress). I also find myself among the group of disparaged photographers who find it frustrating when people on Instagram or any parent with a camera calls themselves a “photographer”; I do not think you have to be trained in photography or art to be a photographer or artists, but I do think you have to have some understanding of the history of the thing you are a part of, and I think it is especially important to understand the principles that underlay the art you are making. Maybe this all seems hypocritical in light of everything I said about the definition of what is and isn’t art becoming broader now, but hey, I did say that it’s complicated.
As always, this is a complex topic that I could bang on and on about for days, and this represents only a small portion of what I think on the topic. For the sake of brevity, though, and because I think you all are smart and get the gist, I’m going to call the post finished.
Thank you all for reading through this trilogy; I hope you got at least a little something out of it, and I hope that you will come back for my next post.