Why it may good that photography isn't a fine art

[Nick_3536]

The argument that photography is too true and therefore not art is interesting. If you use badly expired colour film then does it become art? How about if you can't focus the camera? Then does it become art?

Can't we go the other way? All past painting that tried to mimic reality are not art? Even if it failed we shouldn't reward the painter for failing to acheive reality. So the only paintings that are art are things like Robert Rauschenberg's " White Paintings" ?

[Ken Lee]

- Thanks Jorge -



"Photographs are recordings of things... and since they can be infinitly reproduced have no intrinsic exclusive value....therefore are not art......"



If that's what this fellow is saying, then what about works of literature ? They can be reproduced ad infinitum. He seems to be taking a rather weak position. I'm glad I didn't read all four pages of it. (I appreciate brevity).



This reminds me of the claim that Music can't be Art, since after all, Music is nothing but different combinations of the same set of notes.

[paulr]

"Music can't be Art, since after all, Music is nothing but different combinations of the same set of notes."

Wait a minute--and I paid WHAT for that last CD??

[Ken Lee]

Not to worry - The contents of the CD is only a combination of 1's and 0's. Nothing artistic there.

[tim atherton]

"I also find the "property value" argument simply baffling. "

well, I do think you would have to say (perhaps rather cynically) that photography's true acceptance as a fine art has only come once its auction value has beegun to approach that of the other fine arts (and a very good argument can and has been made that it isn't the other way around).

[Steven Buczkowski]

"Not to worry - The contents of the CD is only a combination of 1's and 0's. Nothing artistic there."

But CDs are written and read with light, so does that make them photographs and, thus, doubly devoid of the qualities of art.

Oh great, now my head hurts.

:-)

[Alan Davenport]

Excuse my ignorance......does troll mean stirring up shit?

That's close enough. I prefer to think of it as fishing for suckers.

[tim atherton]

Here's a slightly different take, with a viewpoint dear to many here:

Considering the Alternative: Are “Artists” Really Necessary?

"It has been clear for some time now that the American people love art—the museums are choked with visitors and the art market is booming—but hate artists, who are widely regarded as elitist troublemakers. In the old way of thinking, these two things were seen to be irrevocably linked; if we wanted art, we had to endure artists. In the new era, we can perhaps reconfigure. Globalization is providing answers to this dilemma in other fields, and will expand the possibilities in art as well. Art production in China, Turkey, South Africa, and elsewhere is up, and could easily meet the increased demand in the U.S. There is plenty of product out there already, and we can import whatever more we need. We’ve stopped making pencils, automobiles, and appliances in America. Why are we still making art?"... more at

http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/arts/april05/railingopinion.html

[Paddy Quinn]

"And here's my obligatory gripe: the typesetting of this particular article really, really, REALLY is LOUSY. It's the worst I've seen in a long, long time - and I spent some time studying typesetting, so I know what good typesetting looks like. This, to put it mildly, is rebarbative."

A good summary of a common approach - focus on the form, not the substance

[tim atherton]

One idea I find interesting is the "democratic" nature of photography (picked up by Eggleston and others)

Unlike almost any other "art" (painting, drawing, sculputre, music etc) just about anyone can make a "good" photograph. It's very easy to make a technically good image (even before digital, it was pretty easy with film). It's also not hard to make a fairly well composed image either. The same goes for making a meaningful photograph. Many, many "hobby amateurs" make such images, as do those who wouldn't even consider themselves up to being at that level of proficiency. Yes, some such photographs may only be meanigful to a particualr group or time. But there are equally many which can stand in their own right (and not just as lucky accidents or clever snapshots - because a certain amount of intent was certainly inherrent in their production).

All of this is aside from how it is comparatively technically (and in many ways creatively) easy to be a competent commercial photographer - product, wedding, portrait, news photographer or whatever.

So is there something that moves photography (or even a particular photograph) beyond that democratic nature?