 |
|
 |
Can Photography be regarded as a valid Artform?
This entire article is © James
Wakefield 2002.
Reproduction Prohibited. All Rights Reserved.
Section Two: The Arguments
To answer that, we must look at how photography has
influenced/affected art, and vice-versa. As Baudelaire and
most artists knew at the time, the concept of being able to
record a scene accurately and immediately posed a very real
threat to artists. The effect photography has had on Art is
to restructure it extensively. Before Photography, artists
were at their peak and photography threatened that, but they
have learned to adapt and develop new styles. Photography
is used by many artists as either an aid (such as Chuck
Close who’s work would be impossible without the
aid of photography) or as actual artwork. Some artists use
it so they can go beyond the boundaries of painting/drawing/sculpting
etc. Man Ray paints what he can’t photograph,
and photographs what he can’t paint.
The reason that this debate exists at all could be put down
to the fact that many artists resent photography being
called an art form. Mainly due to its most advantageous features
- the fact that it is quick and accurate. Artists put a lot
of work into their creations, whereas for a photographer it
is simply a case of ‘click’ and ‘process’.
The amount of effort required could be miniscule in comparison,
which is the main reason why artists resent this medium.
Photographers, however, could argue that photography can go
beyond click and process. Enthusiasts put a lot of effort
into their images, possibly going out specifically to find
that perfect picture which requires a lot of effort. Printing
can be a long and intensive process if you wish to make your
print ‘perfect’, and it doesn’t stop there
- image manipulation by hand or computer requires a lot a
time, effort and patience - similar to a lot of artistic methods.
I am going to put forward the argument that photography is
such an extensive medium, bounded by hundreds of different
uses, styles and techniques that it would be stupid to describe
the whole medium as ‘art’. Is taking a photograph
of a pine chair for a catalogue art? No. Is capturing an image
that evokes emotion and passion when someone looks at it art?
Possibly. Is taking a picture and then spending several hours
in Photoshop manipulating it, art? It all depends on your
personal opinion.
Artist, Christine, believes that Photography can be interpreted
as art, simply because of the advantage it has over normal
art forms that require extensive time and effort:
“I have come to appreciate what photography has to
offer. I do believe it is the one art form that captures the
true essence of a moment, even more than words. Photographs
are what make up life.”
Artist S Schwartz believes that Art means ‘object creation’
- something that you make with your hands, and can touch,
feel:
“ ‘Art’ to most of us means object creation
.. sculpture, painting. Photography CAN be used to create
objects, indeed Man Ray did this, but for the most
part the camera is used to record what the photographer sees
and the viewers faith in the camera as a recording medium
is essential for the effectiveness of an image.”
He continues to say how the materials of painting are paint
and canvas; the material for photography is reality.
Artist Hermann has a very biased view on art and photography,
but he makes a valid point:
“Photography is not an art form. Compared with real
artwork it is a children’s game - complete with little
plastic toys. It is too simplistic - just click? Its very
effortlessness excludes it from being considered art. The
only connection that Photography has with art is the demise
of portrait painters in the 19th Century.”
Photography can indeed be regarded simplistic, but is that
even relevant when assessing it’s value as visual medium?
Hermann claims that the only connection between the two is
the demise of portrait painters - this is quite simply untrue,
as nowadays many artists use the medium to assist them and
some base their work entirely around photography. In fact,
photography was first used by painters in the mid 19th Century
to aid them with their paintings eliminating the need to pay
for models or spend long periods of time sketching. The photograph
allowed artists to extend their boundaries. It allowed them
to paint things that previously would have been impossible,
such as urban scenes. It was simply a case of recording the
scene and returning to the studio where they could complete
the painting in their own time with fewer restrictions.
It took a little longer before some artists believed that
the photograph could be an artwork in it’s own right.
French caricaturist Nadar first used photography as
the basis for satirical portraiture, later acknowledging the
photographs themselves, as opposed to most artists who used
them as reference tools and nothing else (the issue of them
being an art form in their own right not even emerging). The
emphasis was on ‘picture-taking’, not ‘picture-making’.
Continue to Section Three
--->
Discuss
this article
View
Bold Type in detail
|
|
|
|
