Has digital raised photography to an art form at last?

Your telling me this because?????????????????

Sounds like he got some bad pictures back from his Brownie...

I am very surprised by the comment 'photography is the lowest of all arts' !!I will have to disagree.

Creativity is the essense of any art. That aspect flows from one's mind wether it is graphical, sculpture or photography. Fine photos evoke the same emotions as fine arts.

Comming to the qurrey - Digital photography has raised p..

It looks very much like it. Before my digital camera - I was always weary of taking snaps. The pain of waiting for the prints and the anguish of finding a shot didn't turn out as I expected are all once for all, gone. Digital is cheaper and allows instant pictures and one can keep shooting as long as you want. You can improve your snaps quickly and instantly.

In that way digital has certinly enhanced photography which is allways been a art.

When desktop publishing software like Pagemaker gave the average person the ability to do extensive page layout there was an enormous explosion of truly dreadful publications by people who had no idea what they were doing; who had no concept of design; who were under the delusion that there were 'no rules' but had the tools. The same has occured with digital photography and Photoshop. Most of what comes out of Photoshop is boring, repetitive, and definitiely uncreative.

Darryn,

Is the topic "digital photography" or photography as it was in 1891?

Has the word processor given the writer greater freedom of expression? I think not, its just allowed them to create crap more easily and quickly. Same goes for digital.

Art is not just about beauty, it's about truth as well. The writer is correct about the limitations in respect of the former category, but the latter category is where photography has great power. And no, digital isn't going to help, except that it will get more people involved, which means we'll see tons more crap and a few more geniuses.

having taken lots of bad pictures and seen lots of good pictures, i am certain that there is some art to photography. and i dont personally agree with the shotgun approach to photography which digital lends such a helping hand to.

Maybe photographers should only be allowed to use 8x10 then....

Photography IS the lowest form of art. Anyone can take a picture, in fact anyone can take a GREAT picture if they take enough and get lucky.

No matter how often you try, you'll never make a great sculpture or great painting just by luck (though I suppose this is possible). Nor will you accidentally write a great novel or compose a great symphony.

Has the word processor given the writer greater freedom of expression? I think not, its just allowed them to create crap more easily and quickly. Same goes for digital.

I don't think that's a good analogy.

Art is a process by which some concept or design exists in the mind of the artist FIRST and then he uses his skill to express that idea in his medium.

This applies to everything from architecture to ceramics to painting to choreography to haute couture to writing to music to photography to etc.

Two things are required to achieve this. The skill of the artist and the capabilities of the medium. Word processing did not add any new capability for writers. There is no sentence that could not have been written prior to computers. But steel girder construction DID provide new capabilities to architects. New pigments developed over the centuries allowed painters to create paintings that previously they could only imagine. The dance photos of Lois Greenfield could not have been taken in 1891. Color photography made it possible to create photos that would have otherwise remained locked up in the imagination of the photographer prior to its invention.

Furthermore, when a technology merely lowers the difficulty level required to do something it also enhances the art. There are great war photos that Matthew Brady could not have taken. It may be possible to do some things in Photoshop that previously COULD have been done with collage or hand-coloring. But the latter take great skill. An artist with the skill may not have the creative idea. An artist with the idea may not have the skill. If the latter artist could achieve his idea in Photoshop then a piece of art gets created that otherwise wouldn't have.

Bottom line: digital technology enhances the art by making it either more possible or more practical to create things that hitherto would have remained locked up in the imagination of the artist.

Would architecture be improved as an art if it could be freed from the constraints of physics; if it wasn't a requirement that the buildings stand and remain in place? Part of the beauty of architecture is the way it works within its limitations. That buildings can be tall or graceful in spite of gravity is no small part of what makes them thrilling. I would hazard to guess that a large part of the appeal of any art is that the artist must work within the limitations of the medium. These limitations lend a tremendous amount to the language (for lack of a better word) of art.

Consider music. Back in the good old days, when analog synthesizers were first available, it occurred to composers that they were finally free from the physical limitations of instruments and their players. The had a blank sonic canvass; any sound that could be imagined could be realized. A few interesting pieces were created by people like Dallapiccola and Berio and electronic music is still thriving among academics, the music intellegensia, and commercial arrangers. But what do most people who work with synthesizers try to do? They try to get them to sounds like real instruments. Why? Because the limitations of the players and instruments create a framework within which the audience can understand the music. When you remove this framework you are back at square one and can no longer relax on the assumptions and traditions of the audience; you are required to create an entire sonic world with each piece. A thrilling prospect for a composer, but audio purgatory for the audience.

So what about photography? An interesting limitation of photography is its indelible connection to the physical world. The light had to bounce off something before if reached the film. No matter how much you alter the light with filters of darkroom processes, that connection to the physical world still exists and it is this connection, and limitation, that gives photography much of its power. When you remove this with digital means you essentially cut the heart out of photography. You tear down the framework that is the reference for the viewer to understand the image. You can still create art, but if you remove this powerful aspect, it will take a lot of time and genius to replace it. All artistic mediums have limitations. Working within these limitations to create something beautiful is what it is to be an artist.

I thought Trolling was the lowest art.

<i>"...the individuality of the artist is cramped..."</i><p>If you think photography was the lowest of all art forms for the reason you stated, then...yes...digital MUST have "raised photograph to an art form at last." Just ask the a**hole who got canned from the LA Times for the digital manipulation of an image.<p>"Creativity" has much more to do with the artist and his/her imagination than the medium in which he/she works. Some painters are "creative" by adding or eliminating elements of the scene from their canvases. Some sculptors are "creative" by idealizing the forms of their subjects. Some photographers are "creative" by digitally deleting a drab background and pasting in a bright new one. Others are "creative" by manipulating the elements of a scene BEFORE the shutter is operated. And some are "creative" by recording a scene precisely as it is and exposing for the best balance of light and shadow.<p>There have been dozens...nay, HUNDREDS...of "creative" photographers in the last century. Mostly they have been content to work within the constraints of the medium, manipulating what they can and using what they cannot to the best advantage.<p>If you find yourself cramped as an artist by the constraints of photography, maybe it is not the best medium for your expression.

I would hazard to guess that a large part of the appeal of any art is that the artist must work within the limitations of the medium. These limitations lend a tremendous amount to the language (for lack of a better word) of art.

If that were true then logically it would follow that the more the limitations the greater the art.

But architecture, to take your example, has struggled to free itself from limitations for centuries and every new advance from the arch to the steel girder to modern spine systems and composite materials makes possible new and more exciting buildings. I can imagine all sorts of architecture that can't be executed today: buildings that float in the air, with transparent floors; buildings that change shape. I would welcome architecture that defied physical laws: buildings that were tiny on the outside but enormous on the inside or ones with staircases like Escher's that always went up or down.

All the creative arts have benefitted from REMOVING limitations.

They try to get them to sounds like real instruments. Why? Because the limitations of the players and instruments create a framework within which the audience can understand the music. When you remove this framework you are back at square one and can no longer relax on the assumptions and traditions of the audience; you are required to create an entire sonic world with each piece. A thrilling prospect for a composer, but audio purgatory for the audience.

That's not because of the limitations of the instruments; it's because:
1. People are used to hearing acoustic violins and cellos.
2. modern composers don't JUST experiment with new instruments - they also experiment with new compositional elements that many audiences simply don't find "musical". I've endured plenty of late 20th-century orchestral works played by major symphony orchestras on conventional intruments that sounded more like industrial sound effects than music.

There's no reason to make art into a contest judged by difficulty. That's akin to the weird fetish of concert pianists where solo pieces are supposed to be memorized but the same pianist playing a trio gets to have his music AND a page turner! I find that detracts from my enjoyment of live piano sonatas because I'm always a little afraid the pianist will forget his notes!

No matter how much you alter the light with filters of darkroom processes, that connection to the physical world still exists and it is this connection, and limitation, that gives photography much of its power.

Why shouldn't that be equally true of painting? I'm a painter as well as a photographer and I have yet to hear any reason why pixels should be regarded as any different than paint, as artistic material.

I printing for the public; there is alot more garbage with digital than when dealing with film and prints. The quality of digital input varies enormously in what we receive. Some inputs are technically perfect; BETTER than film; alot are total crap; ALOT worse than a 5 dollar disposable film camera.......I wager that 2/3's of the general public still doesnt understand the different resolution settings and compression on their digital cameras..............It is VERY common to receive VGA and 1.3Mega pixel images from users that have 3 to 6 Megapixel cameras.....They shoot in lower resolutions to get more images; and believe ther output SHOULD be good "since it was shot with a professional digital 6 Megapixel camera"..........This is usually with amateurs; zillions of them; and not real pros............Thus our observation is that digital users have less knowledge about enlargeability than film users..............

Typical digital users tend to get good IN FOCUS images; because the DOF is huge with consumer digitals; plus the autofocus seams to work ok.......Thus many here have swarmed to digital; becuase their "focus problem" is now solved...........

As for art; that is a loaded question......

Many digital images we get sometimes have real blown out highlights; even with pro stuff.......This is bothersome to me; for it prints poorly as one blown out area......Scanning of film never seems to get this problem; the non linear shoulder of film seems to help alot with over exposure............

Usually customers consider their own images to be art; and others images to be just photographs.........

Andrew McLeod,

I agree with you on this one. Why should such a blatent troll post be allowed to live?

Because the discussion is interesting.

A troll is "Canon rules, Nikon sucks" (or "Nikon rules, Canon sucks") or words to that effect. This is an interesting question. In fact I may even archive it depending on how it progresses!

I can't say I see this as a troll at all. Photography was always assumed to be a craft rather than an art by many, especially the artistic establishment like the Royal Academy of Arts.

The question of whether it's an art form or not is of ongoing interest to a number of people, me not among them, but that's what a forum's for. Censor not lest ye be censored...

Peter, thanks for taking the time to make this a more interesting discussion than the original question promised. However, I fear you have read more into my response than I wrote. I didn't say that more limitations make for better art. In fact, I didn't use the word better or greater in reference to art at all. I was responding to the idea in the original question that removing limitations from photography raise its artistic worthiness--an idea I disagree with.

The point I was trying to make is that limitations are an important part of art whether they are self-imposed limitations such as shooting black and white film, imposed by tradition such as writing music in sonata form, or those imposed by nature such as gravity. Music didn't suddenly get better when the limitations of physical instruments and players were removed. If your premise that removing limitations always makes for better art is true, perhaps you can point me to a piece of music that is better than Mozart's Marriage of Figaro due to the removal of physical limitations. Now if your point was that the artistic landscape becomes richer when people find new ways of doing things, I agree. Coltrane's Giant Steps isn't possible without the invention of the saxophone.

Also, I agree that there is not much distinction between pixels and paint. But that is what I don't like about pixels. There is a large distinction, a distinction I relish, between photography and painting. I feel when you give yourself free reign to change elements in a photo digitally it becomes much more like painting and much less like photography and you lose the aspect that makes photography distinct from painting--an aspect that I like about photography, and that makes it speak powerfully to me. Of course that is my own opinion and a limitation I place upon my art; I wouldn't expect or insist others do the same.

As for pianists playing from memory, I can tell you, as someone who has played many piano recitals, that it is not a fetish. Playing from memory gives you a kind of musical freedom you can't get when playing from the score. It is difficult to explain to someone who has not performed but a memorized piece is an internalized piece; you have a greater sense of freedom. Chamber musicians use music because you add a level of complexity when performing with other musicians and if the cellist in your piano trio wanders off into never-never land you really need the score to pull it all back together.

Getting a good negative is a skill; creating a good photo is an art. The first is done with the camera, the latter is done with the darkroom. A straight print of Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter Storm is a nice picture. But after he applies (by my count) two dodging techniques and nine burning techniques - that is a work of art.

"Has the word processor given the writer greater freedom of expression?"

I think so. Before I would type something up, I would write it in longhand and make changes as I saw fit. Often when typing and seeing the words in print, not in script, a better phrase or choice of words would come to mind. Rather than start all over or try to white-out, I would leave it as it was. With a word processor, I have no such constraints. In the previous paragraph, I made at least half a dozen changes.

Too many people forget that the purpose of a camera, lens and film is to get the best negative possible. You don't"take pictures" with a camera, you create an image on film. The photo comes later. Blocked highlights on film will be there, the latitude of the photo paper is just incapable of rendering it. Burning in of the area can help, but too much will result in an unacceptable grayish area. Scan the negative and bring it into photoshop and the area can be "corrected" as the photographer saw it. Do photos taken with digital cameras have areas of blocked highlights? I suspect those areas will be all white pixels. Nothing can be done there. That may be a distinct advantage to working with film cameras as opposed to digital cameras.

"There's no reason to make art into a contest judged by difficulty"

I totally agree with that but, still, I would pay more for a watercolor that was done by hand with watercolor paints than an identical one that was done in a paint software that made wholsale corrections available at the push of the button.
"It's supposed to be hard. If it was easy everyone would do it. Its the "hard" that makes it special." - Jimmy Duggan on professional baseball in the film "A League of their Own"

This is a 2x enlargement of a photo from the 1920's (great aunts in Norway) ; in one of our old family albums. The lighting is interesting; I wonder what the exposure was; it appears no flash was used; maybe photofloods? .......There is some blotches in the shadoww areas; from the underexposed areas of the scanned contact print...........I wonder how much of our current digital and analog images will be viewable in 75 years? ......One thing that gets lost in the mix is who the people are in old photos.........We here have alot of 100+ year old family photos; were only one are two people are known with certainty.................Restoring old photos is fun; this old one is almost a straight scan.......I wonder what happened to the negatives ????????

"It's supposed to be hard. If it was easy everyone would do it. Its the "hard" that makes it special."

So what if everyone did it? Talk about snobbish. I suppose we should shut down photo.net so the common people don't appropriate our skills. Moreover the "difficulty" argument is silly. If anything, the artist who achieves the same result in less time should be respected for his ingenuity. I only look at the result; is it good or not?

"Getting a good negative is a skill; creating a good photo is an art. The first is done with the camera, the latter is done with the darkroom. . . . . . Too many people forget that the purpose of a camera, lens and film is to get the best negative possible."

Where does that leave those of us shooting Provia? Can you send it off to Slide Printers and end up with a work of art? Does color work require a minimum amount of preprocessing set up or post processing manipulation to qualify as art? . .

I second Emre. The thing which always gets my back up is this elitist nonsense. We should always be striving to raise everyone up to the highest level, not trying to sift out those with particular skills and placing them on pedestals.

Anything that enables more people to do more things that interest them and lets them feel the personal buzz of achievement is number one in my book. If Photoshop does that then 'Yay Photoshop'...

Mmmmm.....Shall I????????

Sh*t no.....I'll have a beer instead.

Interesting quote, James. You've definitely livlied up this boring boy's club. I love hearing all the "Har-rumph!" and "Eh, wot?" and "Cheeky lad!" that follows any post challenging folks to actually do a little thinking.

Mmmmmmm.....nice beer.

"Has digital raised photography to an art form at last?"

What is there to think about Lex? Digital capture, like film, is simply a medium, not an art form.

I'm not too sure where any elitist sentiments were expressed. The main point is that now anyone can use photoshop to create the best possible print from their negative or, yes, slide. Now a little more (or a whole bunch) of artistic expression can be used.

Printing from slides is an art form unto itself. First one must realize that one is going to create a print and that a slide and print will not look the same. They can't; one is viewed with transluscent light, the other is viewed with reflected light. Then a conscious effort must be made to reduce contrast in the slide at exposure. With photoshop one doesn't have to set up a wet darkroom or send it off to The Slideprinter with instructions like "print for highlights" or "print for trees". If the highlights aren't to your liking you can adjust them then and there on your computer.

I once made an 11×14 print Cibachrome print for a friend from a slide of a giant redwood tree. Actually I made about 6 prints until I got the one that was closest to the feel of the slide. I did a lot of burning in (or is that dodging with direct positive paper?) with color filters, blue for the sky, red for the tree trunk etc. Needless to say it took me quite a while and a bit of expense. Anyone can do that now with no expense and not much time/trouble involved.

BTW, my former friend was not terribly pleased with the print. "The tree trunk really seems to glow on the slide but not in this print." Of course it glows, you've got light shining through the slide.

I first started with slides when I got into photography. For the ones that I wanted to display, I would put them on the wall with a scotch tape ("This will look great over the sofa.") That didn't work out too well so I started to make my own prints from the slides. Even contact printing 8×10 chromes on Cibachrome. I notice even in all the magazines that I look at, I see nothing but prints; not a single slide strip in there.

I think that we may be getting away from the quewstion of art or not art that was the point of this thread

"Control of the picture is possible to a slight degree... But the all-vital powers of selection and rejection are fatally limited...."

Not with photoshop they ain't.

Your restraint is duly noted. Hope you enjoyed the beer.

I keep returning to this issue because it has practical implications. I forget who posted this a few days ago - Emre maybe? - with regard to who you show your stuff to. If you bring stock images to a gallery, you're simply wasting their time and yours. There should to be a way to define what content / processes are common to color prints that show up in different venues . . . . not foolproof, but at least indicators. .

Stop debating and start creating.

There is an art to taking a good picture. Anyone can take a brush and paints and paint a picture, anyone can take a camera and take a picture. How well either comes out depends on ones artistic abilities. Some people just have the "gift" or "eye" for creating great pictures.
I went to one web site to look at some photos that a professional photographer said that his wife had taken. I was stunned. My first impression was "How did she do that?". Everything fit, there were no unneeded elements or no lacking elements. That chair seat coming into the bottom of the frame? (which I would have removed) it belonged there to balance out the entire photo. Taking the photo from a bit higher, a bit lower, more off to the side would have resulted in a bland "so what" snapshot but her composition was right on and it was only that composition that made for a great photo.
I asked the husband if he could explain her ability but all he could tell me was that she would just take a camera and that was the result. It happened too often to be an accident. Like most people who have a truly remarkable gift, she had no interest in photography.

Almost fell out my chair laughing at the pompous title of this thread, "Has digital raised photography to an art form at last?"

For one thing, it would be nice to know what an 'art form' is, and just what is so desirable about this status ('at last!'), and why one might say 'raised' to an art form rather than, perhaps, lowered.

Secondly, what the hell is this 'digital' yer talking about? Is the mark of 'art' to be located in the process or the product? Moreover, are we to suppose the that techonological limits of an enterprise might disqaulify it as art?

Do you mean digital in the sense (tango/lightjet) that is permits high-fidelity print-making, or in the sense of manipulaiton? While I do find digital useful for faking proper exposure, compensating for bad composition, and imitating the results of patiently waiting for good light, I can't see how such techniques can affect the 'art-worthiness' of an activity. I mean, no one would dare suggest that the many fine musicians who've digitally improved their voices in studio are in any way less artistic. After all, PS is so much more than just a tool to digitally add dubya to my "the brothels of Phenom Phen" photo essay.

I think we should wonder about the use of the term 'photography' as well. Suppose Ari the coronoer takes his fm3 to work for the purpose of documenting his conclusions of causes of death. After work, he takes a few shots of his daughter's birthday party for the family album, and gets in his car to drive to the beach for an evening walk. He brings his tripod and shoots a few rolls while he hikes down the shore, and returns to his car just as some buffoon slams into it with is SUV. Our buddy Ari takes a few pictures for his insurance company, and goes home.

You can see where I'm headed here. Photography is like typing. Sometimes I type poetry, sometimes silly posts on photo.nut, and sometimes C++. I never wondering how I can elevate typing to an art form. That a particular photo may or may not be art has to do with intention, excecution, presentation, and, broadly, hermeneutics. Ask Marcel Duchamp (Fountain)!

It's not only silly, but conceptually perilous to consider this sort of pseudo-quesiton. As far as I'm concerned, my oat bran bread recipe is a major contribution to the world of art, and I'll be super-imposing a photo of Hans Richter on a single slice, covering in a thin coating of marmelade and marmot dung, sealing it in shellac, and mailing it to the Centre National d'Art et Culture Georges Pompidou for permanent exhibition.

I'd rather be drinking than arting.

Andrew

Andrew

Bless you, I'm glad that someone got it. Perhaps because of your love of writing you appreciate the thought that had to go into that title. The implied assumption that up until now photgraphy is not an art. The pomposity of it all. Got to love it.

Anybody got a dictionary? ART- application of skill and taste to the production of things of beauty.
Put some paint on a canvas to create a picture and it is art (sometimes). Put a few gallons of paint on a house and it is not art. Or is it? Cyan walls, green windows, yellow trim, a few spots of magenta here and there and "By golly, that house is a real work of art!"

My only regret is that Scott did not pick up on my "go to the grocery store to buy a roll of film" (but then he wouldn't waste his time on a thread such as this) and come in with one of his gently worded suggestions that any one who buys film at a grocery store is too ingorant to even know what the hell he is talking about much less even asking about and should just put a bunch of rocks in his pockets (or an Argus "brick") and go jump in the river and do the whole world a big favor.
To which my reply would have been - I believe the gist of your post is that one should not buy film in Kroger's? Very well, K-Mart it is. I'll tell them Scott sent me. Perhaps they'll give me a discount on the processing.

I am an artist.

At least that's what people tell me. "oh how can you draw like that" "oh you're so talented"...etc. I have been hearing that my entire life. An artist just knows when he/she is an artist. Nothing can change that. Either I can do something about it...and try to create more. Or, I can just sit on my ass and do nothing.

Lately I decided to create more, and I am actually getting paid for doing photography. I suppose I could have tried to get paid for drawing, sketching, graphic design, painting but photography is so easy! It makes perfect sense because artists by nature are immensely visual.

An artist usually has a vision of what he/she wants even before it is created. The trick is having the patience, knowledge, common sense, education, etc. to get from point A (vision) to point B (end product).

The vision is easy for all artists, and any artist will tell you that. Getting to point B is the difficult part.

Personally I don't think digital has made getting to point B any easier. In fact, I think it has made it more difficult, at least for me. But, because I am determined to "create"...I have learned a lot about the technology, and I am determined to get to point B, regardless of the changing technology. Some artists give up on the technology and just get too frustrated, but I am hanging in there.

-JOHN

i'm surprised that so much conversation has taken place without placing this quote in its proper context.

Most importantly, Peter Henry Emerson was a photographer!

http://www.geh.org/ne/mismi2/emerson_sld00001.html

This statement relates to a really strange moment in photo history. It was Emerson's reaction to the proof that the photographic process is one that can be entirely understood in scientific terms. He felt this info meant that photo was not art. I have no idea how he decided that the premise lead to that conclusion.

I really really really don't think photoshop makes photography more art like. Does it give more freedom? Certainly. You can remove that tree growing out of someone's head and fix their complexion. But using photoshop effectively does require a tremendous amount of skill. I really don't believe that, as a whole, digital photography is easier than analog. Are some things easier? Sure, but some things are harder as well.

Hm. James, I think you intended the post as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, perhaps?

Photography was an art form before. Of course, unlike many art forms, photography's increasingly-easy technical aspect means that anyone can create a picture; it also means that we have to evaluate subjectively what is "art" in ways that people usually don't with poorly executed watercolors or pastels by creative folks in their first painting class. And who's to say that those aren't art anyway...

As for whether creating a good negative is just a technical challenge, I would submit that a great work coming out of a darkroom started as a good decision in the field about what to take a picture of, where to take it from, what to exclude, and other artistic decisions, not just whether or not a correct exposure was made (in which lies other artistic decisions).

"Photography IS the lowest form of art"

Photography IS NOT the lowest form of art. Music is.

Try hearing for an our to a american youth rock radio or mtv. That is really something anyone can do. Really pieces of garbage.

I dunno, Marcio. I'm 45 years old and have a broad education in and exposure to the arts. But I'm no purist.

Every once in a while I'm inclined to despair over the incessantly derivative nature of pop music. Then I see something like the video for "Go With the Flow" by Queens of the Stone Age (I mention this mostly for the photographic reference).

Now, unless you simply don't like any form of pop art at all in any form, ya gotta appreciate the wily Peter Max by way of Russ Meyers tribute in the video itself, and the fact that it's just damned good rock-'n'-roll.

My photography should be have a fraction of that hipness.

You're confusing 'good' with 'popular'. 'Good' can be very hard to find sometimes to the point where you may not know it exists. . . . . or recognize it when you see or hear it.

I can't say I know how to appreciate the music Marcio refers to, but I sure remember the days when only long-haired freaks listened to Led Zeppelin - the same demographics now targeted by Cadillac's "Break Through" campaign using tunes once considered garbage by my parents.

For a little different take on this whole thing, try this:

http://www.althausphoto.com/essay1.htm

I would have posted it here, but it's fairly long.

While photo editing is great, I think it takes a lot of work out of actually composing a powerful image. To me, the real art of photography comes with skilful composition- in using the right angles, light, elements etc so that the image captured is a thing of beauty. It takes skill to do that. I'm not sure that manipulating an image in Photoshop after the fact requires the same talent.

S.

No. There's some truly awful manipulated stuff out there. It doesn't even take the skill it used to with enlarger masks and negative sandwiches. I hated that stuff too, but you had to admire the effort that went into it.

Amen to Don Althaus! I just read his "Photography, Art and Where We Go From Here", and it's brilliant. Btw it even gives answers that help "us artists" survive in the postmodern world, something most art theories don't do.

I have a major problem with ranking arts as i can't quite follow the differentiation. What defines an art as "high" or "low": the artist's skill? technical perfection? impact of the artist's hand? the artist's total control over the process? the need for imagination? the artist working purely from imagination? the artist creating an entire world? the product(s) having no value as a utility, being "pure" art? i.e., art being independent from everyday life? or, art being materially useless? art as a luxury--the fewer people can afford to make it and/or own it, the more it is art? Heck, do we need such a ranking anyway?

[T]he real art of photography comes with skilful composition- in using the right angles, light, elements etc so that the image captured is a thing of beauty. It takes skill to do that. I'm not sure that manipulating an image in Photoshop after the fact requires the same talent.
It doesn't even take the skill it used to with enlarger masks and negative sandwiches.
Sharifa and Roger, I don't share your view as it's close to confusing skill and art. While most excellent artists were or are skilled, not all skilled people have the inspiration or talent to be artists! I'm one of the guys who chose photography as they can't draw or paint well, so I'm only too aware of the difference. (Sure, I could make paintings and drawings that don't come the way I wanted them and find an explanation why they're art precisely because of this, but I'm not comfortable with that.)

I'm also one of those guys who think that art should be democratic. In other words, the modern and postmodern view of the artist as a special person, as a member of the very elite-that-is, doesn't go very well with me.

Marcio, I hardly think that Music is the lowest form of art because you find pop music to be uninteresting. I mean, there's a lot of photography that I find uninteresting and derivitive, too, but that doesn't make it a bad art form. Sheesh.

its all art, its just easier to create crap in some mediums over others.

Hi lex, I understand what you mean.

But what I mean is that if photography can be 'low' for not being creative, looking all the same, etc, so can music, and the pop music was the example that I thought of.

You know, those studio-performed music that the producers make and the artist don't even touch, that sounds all the same and have a life of less than a year, then it is disposed.

That is a cheap art. Cheaper than any uncreative photo.

And I can compare the aspect that anyone can make 'beautiful photography' with anyone can play a instrument well, or sing and make a 'beautiful music'

Both are cheap and low the same way.

Of course Deep Purple glorify the art :)

Marcio, I'm really curious, who appointed you arbiter in chief?

I don't like 99% of modern pop music but that doesn't make it bad. A lot of youngsters like it, that doesn't make it good. In fact, there's no such thing as good or bad in art. There's just like or dislike. Of course, there's always some pretentious twerp who'll stand up and mouth off about 'artistic values' whatever they are when they're at home, but it seems to me that the best thing to do with such people is to laugh at them until they go away.

<< In fact, there's no such thing as good or bad in art. There's just like or dislike. >>

Oh, bull! There's plenty of bad art out there--art that fails to reach its own goals, art so technically flawed as to be pointless, art that fails to engage anyone's interest on any level. A mature sensibility must, certainly, discern between "truly awful" and "stuff of possible merit I don't happen to like", but it doesn't mean we have to descend to the grade school "everybody's above average and worthwhile" B.S.

<<Control of the picture is possible to a slight degree... But the all-vital powers of selection and rejection are fatally limited....>>>

Stupid and untrue even in 1891; more so now--especially, photography makes it emotionally easer to throw out ideas that didn't work. 2nd-tier museums are full of flawed works by name artists, works gifted makers would have thrown out as substandard if they hadn't invested two weeks in the creation and needed to eat--works gifted curators would have given to Goodwill rather than display if it wasn't 90% name and 10% artistic value.

You want to select and reject individual details of subject matter? Well, set it up that way. Photography need not mean just snapping what's there, although that's a valid option. Cindy Sherman's early stuff is all about creating a specific (false) world on paper, and she didn't need digital. Can anyone say Man Ray didn't fully exercise powers of selection and rejection??

I really don't see how anyone can set themselves up as knowing 'good' art from 'bad' art. Art is entirely cultural and highly personal. I remember reading in a textbook on anthropology how people from some African tribes that had no cultural background of representative art were unable to 'see' a painting until it had been explained to them. You may not be able to 'see' what the artist is showing you. Does that make it bad art?

And of all the things in the world, the grade school "everybody's above average and worthwhile" attitude is far from the worst. And beyond that I don't like the nasty tinge of elitism that goes with 'I' know what's good art and what's bad. It smells just a little of 'goodspeak' and 'badspeak' and the primrose path to fascism.

If you think that something is 'bad' art, first find out how many people like it. If that number is greater than zero then it isn't 'bad' art, it's just something *you* don't like.

Photography is not “Art” per-se. Neither is music, painting, porcelain, prose, metal or textile or lapidary work. Nothing is inherently “Art”. Inflection occurs at the nexus of creation and regard. The distinction of art from craft is not the conception, it is the point of recognition at which the created becomes more than the sum of it’s parts. If the result only enlightens the instigator the endeavor becomes art and success. Whether an esteemed communiqué solely of its creator or well regarded interaction by two or many separate beings, this understanding, and this interactive existence is the difference between art and craft.

Who can forget the medical doctor whose love of life is so expressed through the craft of medicine that the extra 20 minutes in the waiting room seems as nothing, we know that individual will give 100% to our infirmity and do it not as if a chore but with real care and such caring compassion that we want to compensate them, we choose them over other apathetic “care” givers. They are in love with life and they do it, express it, well. People pay them for “It” because we want their passion as a part of our lives. Whether I am commissioning work on my auto transmission or frontal lobe, I want someone who is engrossed in the quality of his or her labor and not just interested in a paycheck. However, such craft, such care and expression may not transcend to “Art”. I may not be able to envision the “Art” in a surgical procedure; I am not a surgeon. Nonetheless, “Surgical Art” may be akin to the masterpiece hidden inside a wall as homage to the artists Creator, Art as private communication, as intimacy of being. “Art” is not separate from who we are. “Art” is not an expression of a thing or an idea or concept; Art is an expression of a person successfully communicated to and by oneself with a derived grater understanding.

I do not claim success of “Art” expression within my own life, only the awareness of the potentiality. Some work of mine is craft and some is less, but some, to me, is art. Art takes effort and when I overcome lassitude my effort occasionally touches success. A person may fallaciously believe they can only express themselves through gardening, cuisine or the saxophone; nevertheless, the act of expression is simply the endeavor of intimacy. Art is the level of intimacy we allow ourselves. If we allow a close personal, intimate relationship with only one aspect of our life, we will need the bottle, TV, or some other drug as an escape or distraction/dissociation from our crumpled soul. People will express themselves, we do express our selves, inasmuch as we live as an angry, aloof, socio-ascetic or an open, loving and acquitted being whose soul has taken flight. However, we can only immediately express who we are now, and as change is an existential prime constant, “Seek first…” then express love and passion in all through liberty.

Hi all it is like painting, music art is not the question of gear. I'm journalist and artist I'm working with non SLR as DCF 828, or Olympus 8080 cameras most here with the pixelrace look at scrap I'm with photo now for 20+ years and did art with some 20 $ cameras, it was all darkroom and imagination with digital I'm faster, it's more direct it's more mass production, but a portrait with a cheap 5M cam can be art it's not the cam, it's not about digital it's time, luck, imagination and hard work darkroom or photoshop does not matter

Talk to some painters who have tried to take excellent photographs. They think it is hard to do- most can't do it.. After about 15,000 images I have about 30 images that I would display at one of my shows. Photography is probably the most viewed art form of all. Good luck to you in your image aquisition it is not easy regardless of your talent level. Professional photographer for 30 years.

Hasn't the debate over Photography as an Art Form been resolved even before the Digital Revolution? I gagged when I started to read the paragraph and was relieved to get to the end and see that it had been written, not in the last century, but the one before that! This turgid take on photography is rediculous. The only interesting issue is why Digital could be credited with elevating the status of Photography higher at all. The concern that the machine was taking the picture and not the person was the biggest obstacle that had to be resolved before the medium could get the respect it deserved. The whole f64 and Straight Photography Movement, championed by Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and all, offered expressive, clearly different approaches in applying what a camera does best. The concept of Previsualization was intended to show that the camera and darkroom tools were a means to an end. Adams striking technique and accessible subject matter went a long way towards winning the masses over to the most democratic artform. Digital is just an evolution in imagemaking, though the most important one since the invention of Photography itself. I have not seen a digital image that presented a final result that I have not seen done with the traditional tools and materials. Instead, it is a relief that digital and computer based photographs were accepted more easily than all of photography since its birth.

It hasn't elevated so much as leveled the playing field by making sophisticated controls available to whoever wants to learn the commands. What used to require great skill and experience is now on your hard drive and not in your brain and dependent on your manual dexterity. It is now more democratic than ever and this reality surely smoothed the way for digital imaging to be welcomed the way it has. No longer something somebody has and you don't or don't want to take the time to learn, egos can calm down and concentrate on making pictures. An argument could be made that digital has compromised the visual impact and lexicon of the photograph by making any manipulation to an image commonplace. More significant is how a photograph is assimilated by the viewer since the Dig Rev. "The camera doesn't lie" is no longer true though it never was in the total sense. Now viewers take for granted that what they are looking at isn't necessarily representative of some thing, person or place that actually exists in the form presented. Straight Photography challenged the viewer to look at the real world more intensely and interpret it with their own consiousness. It had alot to do with what the viewer brought to the party. Now the act of viewing an image is more passive, initially at least . The photograph must be processed first with the premise that the content, in the case of an image presented in a photo realistic manner, guarantees nothing about the nature of the source material whatsoever. Although this robs photography of one of the traits that set it apart from most everything else, it may have made Mr. Emerson think twice before taking that stand. Now photographer's choices have been greatly expanded and invites artifice into the creative process, it doesn't have to look like "Art" in the way Pictorialism tried to make a photograph into something else. The limitations of photography are so few that the all-vital powers of selection and rejection are only limited by the artist's imagination.

What would have satisfied Emerson would have also prevented him from learning to see more with his mind. But the same versitility may have the opposite effect on contemporary viewers when they realize the incredible power, and personal expression, the work of Walker Evans represents once they see beyond what looks like a picture "anyone could have taken" to find what could have only been with (not by) a camera and keen intelligence. And without any pretense or apology.