Photography as an Art-Form

A short essay inspired by several frustrations of late and a perception that the photographic community at large are all too often hung up by the perfections of photography. I understand that wildlife photography has it's own credo to adhere to in some respects but still believe that it has merit as an art-form (along with the many other genre's of photography). I also belive that the photographic community often get too hung up with the technicalities of the perfect photo. Hope you enjoy my bit of philosophical thinking on this Tuesday?

Photography as an Art Form

Every dog and their Uncle these days has a camera! Everywhere you look, absolutely everywhere - people are taking photographs. Photographs of sporting events, photographs of graffitti, photographs of dogs and cats, photographs of paparazzi, photo's and yet more photo's of your children. The list goes on and on.

The pervasiveness of camera's these days is unbelievable. You cannot get a cell-phone anymore without a n-megapixel camera that takes better pictures than the average point-and-shoot did only a short year or two ago. Technology is racing ahead. Are we ready to keep up though? And is our Art?

With all these photographs lying around and all of these photographers (some of them very fine photgraphers) taking so many pictures I can't help but believe that the value of photography has been diminished as an art-form.
As ardent fans of photography some of us complain about the lack of the 'sale-ability' of our productions but it is small wonder when you see the plethora of images being produced these days. Go into any half-decent book-store and just look at the amazing array of not just photographic books and magazines but also those publications that use photography as their primary medium - fashion; art; decor; gardening; travel. There is an unbelievable amount of photographs being produced and utilised in a myriad of ways. How do you stand out amongst that crowd or do you give in a succumb to the stock masses?

I would go so far as to say that there is an over abundance of photographs today; beyond the point of market saturation. Once again this diminshes the value of photography as an art-form. Or does it?

Some purists have the view that the main aim of photography has been to register reality and that photography has never more to offer than is seen on the picture itself. I believe that many would disagree with this viewpoint and I for one cannot abide by this definition. Many photographs inspire me and conjure up countless variations and visions with what they don't show rather than what they do. Or they carry me away to far off places to witness events and sights that I would never get the opportunity to see. What is reality anyway? Reality is certainly subjective and we all know that the boundaries of reality can indeed be pushed through the creative use of photography. Furthermore the digital medium and photographic manipulation most certainly brings photography back into the realm of a substantial art-form requiring significant creative interpretation.

The conundrum of course is that photography is both science and an art. Alan Briot eloquently states that "Unlike a painter, who is in direct contact with his subject and his canvas, a photographer is separated from his subject by the camera and from his "canvas" by computers and printers today and by darkroom equipment previously."
Some of us (more technically minded perhaps) can become bogged down by the technicalities of photography (i.e. how many EV levels is one photo different from another, or how many different Photoshop post-processing techniques are there to sharpen a photo).
This can diminish the benefit one can gain from approaching photography as an art-form with photographs that lack emotion or 'feeling' - that unquantifiable feedback that we get when viewing a masterpiece that just 'speaks to us'.
It's not to say that the scientific aspects of photography are unimportant. On the contrary. In much the same way as a traditional artist needs to learn and understand the various techniques and practices, rules and guidelines in his chosen art form before he can even begin to extend the boundaries or break the rules a photographer must do likewise. An artist should also learn to draw from historical perspectives and leverage what the masters before him have learned. I really believe the same is true also of the relatively new form of digital photography. We should not discount the lessons learned in the dark-rooms and in the field of the masters like Henri Cartier-Besson, Ansel Adams and the like? Those lessons are invaluable and insightful and we should build upon them to further the art of photography to even greater heights.
Certainly painters have far less technical challenges to deal with than photographers do as we depend on a variety of technical devices (sensors, monitors, printers, software, calibration etc) to reproduce the visual effects we perceive or desire to reproduce and it is therefore that we should strive to master all of those technical challenges so that all we are left to focus on is our creativity. Once we can move past the technicals we can create images that form an emotional response to a particular scene rather than any perfect mechanical representation could.

So now hopefully you will agree that some photography can indeed be considered an art form? However I believe it is really important that you as a photographer strive to establish yourself with a particular style and energy that makes you stand out from the crowd. You cannot hope to compete with the weekend warrior wedding photographers unless you have a vision for the art that you wish to create. You cannot hope to have your photographs hung up on a wall in an art gallery if they are not only technically incompetent but more importantly fail to send a message or stir an emotion in the viewer. The millions of photographs produced daily by the millions of photographers out there do a more than adequate job to capture our daily lives in all of it's success and stife. Very few of them however fail to send a message, capture an emotion or speak to the viewer. It is only then that we have an artistic photograph.

Is it hard to do? Yes of course it is! If it was easy the market would be flooded with artistic photographs. Instead the market is flooded with cookie cutter representations of reality. Don't misunderstand me. That photography can bring much joy to the viewer (albeit a much smaller audience) and it has great value in recording us as a civilisation but it does somewhat diminish the appreciation of photography as art. The general viewing public tends to gloss over the medium as a whole as a result and dismiss it as being not credible or valueless in terms of enriching our spirituality or emotional well-being.

Why are great sums of money paid out for pieces of traditional painted art-works. Several reasons I believe. One is the scarcity of masterful artwork. Another is the amount of perceived effort and energy expended in creating that art-work. There is this perception that one simply has to press the shutter on a camera to produce a great photo, whereas an artists labours for months or years over a piece of work. Quite simply this is a misconception of photography. Sure, one can blindly and with pure luck capture an award winning photograph. But those artists who produce phenominal photographs consistently may spend months evaluating a scene waiting for just the right light to capture the perfect landscape. Or spend a life-time in the bush waiting for the perfect kill, the perfectly balanced stride of a Cheetah in pursuit of it's prey. They may also spend a significant time in preperation of their images in post-production agonising over every small detail from capture to print. I agree it is hard to rationalise this with the general public when they see Uncle Tom with his Canon 5D at a wedding produce one or two photo's that are absolutely sublime?

Art takes many forms. It is up to us as the artists to produce something that not only speaks to us as an individual but to a wider audience as a whole. Don't mistunderstand me; it is also quite acceptable to have an audience of one. But art can communicate on so many other levels: break down barriers; speak to the masses with a new message; inspire even.

I believe it pertinent to close with a quote from Clive Bell in his classic essay "Art" states that only one thing can distinguish art from what is not art: "significant form." Bell wrote: "There must be some one quality without which a work of art cannot exist; possessing which, in the least degree, no work is altogether worthless. What is this quality? What quality is shared by all objects that provoke our aesthetic emotions? What quality is common to Sta. Sophia and the windows at Chartres, Mexican sculpture, a Persian bowl, Chinese carpets, Giotto's frescoes at Padua, and the masterpieces of Poussin, Piero della Francesca, and Cezanne? Only one answer seems possible - significant form. In each, lines and colors combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions."

Not all photographs have to be works of art but if that is our goal then we must look at our work crtically and ensure that our "paintings of light" stand up as such. Only then can our photographs be deemed to be art and only then can our photography stand up as an art-form and reach the lofty heights of traditional artists whose works hang with pride and place in homes and musuems around the world.