Photography: art or craft?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian Phillips-McLaren on July 26, 2007 at 10:06pm

OK! I agree with you on that but is a photograph of a shelf of books hanging off the wall in a dilapidated house art.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Colin Beck-Mackay on July 27, 2007 at 8:24am

In the interests of art/craft I have conducted a controlled experiment in order
to answer the question you pose; the answer is no,but it might win the Turner prize.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ian Phillips-McLaren on July 27, 2007 at 9:14am

Good answer, I'd be careful what I photograph tho if I were you, it might very well end up winning the Turner Prize ;-) poor old William would turn in his grave if he saw some of the nonsense that won.

I was quoted in a photography magazine about a month ago saying "fine art photography is a load of arse" which of course isn't quite what I said, I was referring to a photo of a shelf that I saw over loaded with books, literally hanging off the wall in a dilapidated house, hence the previous question. So just for the record I do like fine art photography, I just don't like nonsense.

Good fine art photography to me is the likes of Giedrius Varnas and Camille Solyagua both of which are listed on the 'wall of links' page, under 'a beautiful site'.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by craig reynolds on July 27, 2007 at 8:54pm

Well if you ask me,and no one did but here i go anyways ! Im afraid its all about one mans meat and all that, some will love it some just wont.You can put as much love and technical know how into a photo as you can,and to you it is art and others will see it as art, but theres always going to be that one person who just sees a photo.I think photography is an art but like everything you have to learn the craft before you can create art,after saying all that though i like how you put it!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Colin Beck-Mackay on July 28, 2007 at 7:17pm

Not the photograph?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Giles Christopher on July 31, 2007 at 8:15pm

As a fine art photographer myself, my interpretation of fine art photography has always been a photo as art that someone would want to hang on the wall! and i always shoot with this in mind, Craft, having the eye and being a experienced photographer certainly helps in giving your work a consistant style. Here is an example of my image that won me professional photographer of the year "Fine art Catagory". On the other hand there is some rubbish out there, shot by amateurs that get the Emperors new clothes syndrome!!

Attachments:

• BOATS-AT-DAWN700px.jpg, 32 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Martin Gisborne on August 6, 2007 at 4:51pm

I'd say, in professional photography, a photographer must be able to realise a clients needs using all the skills of the craft while injecting their own artistry into the finished work. The proportions change depending on the job, let's face it, we've all done jobs that were 95% craft and 5% artistry... The REAL art is trying to find a clientele that allow you to switch that to 40% craft, 60% artistry.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Martin Gisborne on August 6, 2007 at 4:52pm

Of course, if you're still in college you can get away with 100% 'art' and no craft ;-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Pentin on August 10, 2007 at 12:51pm

Here's my two pennies worth! I think photography is both art and craft. You're unlikely to achieve a striking image without good visualisation and technical proficiency. However, the degree to which you need both depends on which type of photographer you are. A conceptual photographer is arguably more creatively driven and their work is primarily assessed on their artistry than their technical abilities. The balance shifts the other way for documentary photographers who rely on their craftmanship to record the image but use their artistic talents to make it as visually appealing as possible. Thinking about it, I think that's pretty much what Martin said!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brenagh Ni Mac Tire on July 4, 2009 at 4:19am

I think that photography can be either of them. Some people take amazing photos that they don't put effort, thought, or creativity into and do a little bit of editing and then-BAM! they win a prize or get loads of money from national geographic. I think that if you put thought, creativity, feeling..etc, then it is art. I think that even if a photo looked terrible, but it was just for someone to get their feelings out and express themselves, regardless of whatever it looked like, then it is art. I don't really think art is up for interpretation when it comes to asking if it's art or craft, because it invalidates other people's feelings. So, I say go ahead and post books hanging off of shelves in a dilapidated house. I think it gives an impression of depression (yay rhymes!)
And sometimes, you may think the photo was stupid and ridiculous, but it could strike an emotion in another person.

I was having a conversaton with Edward Roth and he was talking about it is cliche to take a picture of sunsets. I told him that sunsets were always beautiful, and there was always something special about them, but to make the photo original and unique, you have to capture that special something in the photo. Plus, sunsets are really pretty, so as long as people see what you saw at the moment, they will think it is beautiful.
Anyways, because something is so common in photography, does that mean if you take a picture with the same subject, it isn't art?
I think craft can only take you so far, without the art aspect, and vise versa. But I think it's like splatters of paint on a canvas, people say things like 'that isn't art' or ' a three year old could do that' but really....you don't know how they felt when they did it, or what they were thinking. So I think if you like it, you like it. If not, then don't sit there and invalidate it by saying it isn't art.

I'm not saying you did do that...except to the book and house thing, I'm just saying that is what I think. Craft or Art, it depends on the person.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Rutherford on July 16, 2009 at 7:19pm

Colin said "My view for what its worth is that you can have your cake and eat it", and I have to agree. What else are you going to do with a cake? Photograph it?
As a hobbyist I look at Fine Art Photography with awe, yet I have seen some peices that bemuse me and makes me wonder what the photographer was trying to achieve. And maybe that is what the photographer wanted....to ellicit thought and emotion, no matter if its negative or positive.

Sometimes the "art" is in the action of taking the photograph that no one thought of, even when its in plain sight to everyone.
Sometimes the "art" can be found in the craft, of the skill or innovation of the photographer, defined in the end product.
Sometimes the "art" is simply the subject that is captured.
Sometimes the "art" is found in the feelings brought forth within the viewer.

I doubt that there will be any defining explaination.

There may simply just be, "I like that" or, "I hate that". Which is a personal thing and will change from one to another.
All being said, I'm just a hobbyist and may have spoken complete rubbish.
:)

▶ Reply to This