Friday, March 11, 2011
Photography as art.
Many art leagues and art galleries grapple with whether photography is considered art. They often leave photography off the list of art accepted into their juried shows. Rather, they think of photography in terms of a medium to use to record and submit their work. Most museums, however, have no qualms about accepting photography as art. Some of the most sought-after exhibits are by famous photographers.
Of course, photography is art. It is creative. It follows the same principles of line, form, color, and composition as art; therefore, it can be judged by the same criteria. The question is not whether photography is art, but what makes photography art?
Photography as art usually stems from the creative vision of the photographer. If the photographer intends to capture a moment in time to document a birthday party or Christmas morning, that photographer will probably create a wonderful photo album to remember that day, but he/she probably won't consider their photography art or even care if anyone else does. However, the fine art photographer considers the camera in the same manner as a painter considers his brush. He envisions the scene before him in the same manner as the painter and captures it for its artistic value.
The medium is not what qualifies the piece as art. It's the end result. And that's what I think on that...
What do you think?