David Spero shows The Social the light, discussing the relationship between photography and art at London's Barrio Central bar. Image copyright Karen McQuaid.
29 Mar 2011
Is photography art?
"Don't let's kid ourselves that the only good stuff is made in the name of art," said David Campany at The Social, in the first of two talks on the relationship between photography and art
Diane Smyth
Tags:
Fine art, Discussions, Social"What's the relationship between photography and art? It's a big, pompous question and there might have been a time when I'd have given a big, pompous response but I don't have a clue any more," said writer and academic David Campany at The Social last night. "I'll try to respond in the time I have in a very personal way."
Campany got interested in photography when he was a teenager and his first contact with photography was through magazines, books and scientific studies, he said, none of which would necessarily be described as art. His first book, Art and Photography, included photographers both in and out of the art world and while he was aware there was an issue, he was still interested to see the hot debate it caused among reviewers on publication. "If you have a slightly affectionate commitment to photography it gets you into trouble because what makes photography exciting is that it exists in so many different forms," he said.
For him, photography made for magazines and papers is just as interesting as photography made for the gallery wall, and it should be left in context rather than isolated after the event. When he's teaching he prefers to show students the original magazines in which photojournalism appeared, he said, rather than single 'iconic' shots against a white background. "Art historians tend not to take photography seriously until it's seen on the wall, and that's a shame," he said, later adding, "Why do we let museums tell the history of these things?"
"Don't let's kid ourselves that the only good stuff is made in the name of art," he concluded.
Photographer David Spero took a similar tack, noting the battle of wills that took place at the Royal College of Art from 1990-93, when he was studying photography and the subject moved from the school of communications to fine art. "There was a lot of conflict with the art photographers who wanted a separation [from the photographers engaging with less conceptual questions] in the final degree show," he said.
Like Campany, Spero is wary of the process of canonisation through which documentary or fashion photographers are 'elevated' into a different milieu. He used photographer Jacob Holdt as his example, noting how the images in Holdt's 1977 book, American Pictures, were recontextualised when it was reprinted in 2007. In Holdt's original the shots, which show friends and scenes from the American underclass, are introduced with a long, politically-engaged text, and contrasted with photographs of mansions and other symbols of wealth. In the later reprint, the images are printed one by one, without text, on plain white pages, and the captions moved to the end of the book.
"Is that good or bad?" he asked. "The original book is a very careful account of the politics of the time, and shows the desperate houses of the cotton pickers alongside the mansion of the farm owner. The new book shows simple images on a white page. It raises questions about who's canonised, and what it does."
The Social is an informal discussion night run by BJP and The Photographers' Gallery on the last Monday of every month at Barrio Central, Poland Street, London W1F 8PS. Previous nights have looked at press vs documentary photography, fashion and advertising, but we're taking a night off on 25 April as it's a bank holiday.
Comments
He said afterwards that in his writing (and I guess by extension in his talks) he aims to write for the bright 19 year old. He's inspired by a point made by George Orwell, that if you write for people younger there's no point as they won't get it, and if you write for people who are older, there's no point because they are a lost cause already. I don't have the exact reference for that quote but if someone else does I'd love to have it! Thanks, Di
Well I wouldn't take everything George Orwell wrote as 'tablets of stone' because most people write differently for different audiences.
Anyhow as to photography being art there is the further question of : is art really Art? By which I mean a lot of classic works started life as documentation, illustration, or decoration, sometimes for a religious purpose or even a propaganda one.
The deification of 'Art' is often used for self justification purposes and personally I'm just as happy to have photographs on my walls, in fact I prefer them :)
"Is X art?" assumes an exclusive definition of art; there are things which are and are not art. That is surely the case, but unless we define it as "things people call art", there are endless arguments because it means whatever we make it mean. It is more simple to use this definition, and then distinguishes between Types of Art, or Ways of Art.
The interpret and the photograph are in some ways analogous: they each take something is in itself complete, and they interpret it, relaying it to the audience in altered form. The framing is one parameter controlled by the photographer, and the tempo may be one for the interpret. In. They can each shift it into something unrecognisable -- as is done often with electronic music, and photoshop'ed photography. For some forms of expression, the inspiration is more subtle and their person more present.
On the other hand, painters and composers express themselves with more resolution; their expression has fewer constraints than if you have one of the first cameras, for example (barely mobile, so bellybutton shots, no play of colours if desired, etc.) -- or if you have a composition so precise in terms of guiding the interpret that it has no room for creativity (akin to doing pre-regularised portraits).
.There are differences, and it's interesting to consider these differences since they teach us about the mediums we use and love.
There are too many arguments on something being or not being art, many of which seem to play with vanity.
This said, a straight photographer should neither feel shame because or deny that the parameters he plays with are more limited than the photograph; his expression is in how he handles something which already exists, rather than in creating something whole. I think this is meant when photography is said to be "easier", or that it has "less creativity".
I was just asking because it sounds very funny. Usually it's "Let's not kid ourselves" or "Don't let us kid ourselves" but "Don't let's kid ourselves" sounds weird.
But I'm not a native English speaker so maybe that's just me.
I think photography is just that: Photography. Sometimes it can be beautiful, or not.
Nowadays, in this "market" economies societies art is just a marketing status created in order to especulate on the values of peoples' work. Usually the creators are not the recipients of the inflated values.
Photography is a technique for producing images; the camera is a tool just like brushes and palette knives. It is for the viewer to decide for him or herself whether the product – a painting, photograph, collage or whatever – is art.
The camera is a means of recording an image, it is the user that converts the image into art and the viewer who determines if it is to their liking or not.
Imagine a time before words, and before the concepts we argue over, and the ideologies existed.
We would still have our sight, and would have the means to record all we could see.
Everything we could see and record existed, and we,some of us, recorded what we saw.
We were looking at an amazing planet
and usnow.
I was out today enjoying whatever, and walking down the street I realised something to do with this particular subject.
I began enjoying looking and seeing, but then, rather like secondary school and universities as far as the "humanities" are concerned, I unfortunately imagined I had to prove myself in precisely this context, and in other contexts.
I did not have to, and noone should bother. It is not that the debate is impertinent, no, or redundant: the problem is that it seeks to value one thing, in this case "art" over another, the subject as recorded with a camera.
This mental illness, this disease with the real world, has us place an entire series of values on our "shit" in order to justify charging money for it and making a living out of it, as we are landless and cannot sustain our lives naturally.
Thus a photograph of a pot of sunflowers is claimed to have a greater value than do the sunflowers that were photographed. It could be grass, or tulips, or a torn curtain, or a wall, or a child in a pram, or someone starving to death in Eritrea, or a man being shot at point-blank range in Vietnam.
In every case we value the image more.
"Photography is not art" said Snowdon, "Its about moving levers and pressing buttons. People like me took up photography because we could not draw." I entirely agree with Lord Snowdon on this as it has been my experience since 1960 with my Kodak Brownie.
It is art if it gives you an emotional response
I dont think you need to categorise it. I like taking photos because I like looking at things and i am not good at drawing. However I often look at other peoples work in galleries and get an emotional response to the image, just as I do when I look at a painting I like or listen to a piece of music that moves me so in that respect, yes it is art.
Is bad painting art?
Perhaps certain types of photography by those who
follow art rules can be art if there is a contemplative aspect and art techniques utilised.
in this clip
http://vimeo.com/19498941
Cabrera speaks of how art influenced his photography .
His 5 x4 work is brilliant!
Can painting with light be art?
Some photography can be art
By its nature the art is and should be elusive - be extra wary of ANYONE trying to pin it down to some clever definition, especially elitist critics - it is all a matter of interpretation and one of the functions of art is to allow people to express themselves by contemplating art. Just my two penneth.
www.personalcanvasprints.co.uk
i think art can come in many forms, you wouldnt say that football isnt an art just because its not on a painted canvas so i would say yes to the question as to is photography art, it like any skill that takes talent over time to perfect.
'In Holdt's original the shots, which show friends and scenes from the American underclass, are introduced with a long, politically-engaged text, and contrasted with photographs of mansions and other symbols of wealth. In the later reprint, the images are printed one by one, without text, on plain white pages, and the captions moved to the end of the book. Is this good or bad?'
Perceptions of art have changed a little since the first printing in 1977. Should we solidify the meaning, cultural relevance and artistic worth of photographs in context of a specific time period, or should we give people a chance to interpret the images without this attached political and historical baggage? It's certainly worth a try for the cause of moving art and interpretation forward and both printings have equal value for that reason. No matter what the initial intent, photographs will be read differently by different generations. This isn't something we should try to stifle, unless we want to stifle the progression of art, interpretation and culture itself. The later printing is as important as the first.
"Art historians tend not to take photography seriously until it's seen on the wall, and that's a shame."
The best articulated *images* translate their messages visually and stand well on their own as a result - thus, they end up in frames on gallery walls. They are then of interest to *art* historians, indeed. If a photograph only works within the context of an article, inevitably, it will only be taken seriously as a support image and as a document in its historical or subjective context. But our perceptions (and the historian's perceptions) of what is and isn't important will change over time, as culture changes. Which is to say, the support images may one day have strength as standalone images and move into that elusive sphere of visual art. People can be very finicky about art photography as something finite, to their own and everyone else's detriment.
The term 'art' is a catch-all phrase to denote 'methodicity of expression' to communicate something meaningful.
Writing, drawing, painting, music, acting, sculpting are, along with photography, technical crafts of methodology of intentional expression.
By this understanding photography is an art form.
Photography and art are different
Photography is not art, according to Burne-Jones's wonderful definition of art: “I mean by a picture, a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was, never will be — in a better light than any light that ever shone — in a land no one can define or remember, only desire — and from forms divinely beautiful.”
-
Luminous Books in East London is an artist curated bookshop specializing in second hand fiction, philosophy, art and curiosities.
-
When The Photographer's Gallery closed to begin construction on a brand new space in Autumn 2011, many thought the bookshop would have closed with it. But in the spirit of keeping aspects of the gallery alive, talks and courses have continued to run in other locations and the Bookshop has been running from a temporary space.
-
The Claire de Rouen Bookshop is not so much a place dealing with passing trade, but rather a destination people seek out, building its reputation based on word of mouth and those in the know
-
Pastor Marrion P'Udongo has been called the "Oskar Schindler" of Congo, a man who's dedicated himself to saving and nurturing the lives of others. He's also been one of the most reliable fixers for photographers and journalists in the war-torn country, and he now needs your help
-
Last month, CNN quietly announced it was laying off "a dozen" photojournalists across its US bureaus as, it says, the network can now rely on user-generated content thanks to new consumer technologies
-
Earlier this month, Alec Soth took to eBay to raise funds for a charitable cause - the prize? A portrait commission with the Magnum photographer
-
Rocco Rorandelli has been documenting the tobacco industry for the last three years, ever since he asked himself what lay behind a cigarette.
-
When photographer Peter DiCampo decided to seek funds for his project Life Without Lights, he chose the Kickstarter platform instead of the more commonly used - at least in the photojournalism community - Emphas.is. But he had good reasons, he tells BJP
-
Laura El-Tantawy has been working, for the past five years, on a long-term project about her homeland: Egypt. Now, as the country is undergoing massive political and social changes, she's appealing for help to continue her work
-
Photographer Neil Osborne is raising funds on Emphas.is to document a success story - how one man has helped save the Black Turtle from extinction
Blog roll
- 5b4
- 1000 Words Photography
- A Photo Editor
- A Visual Society
- BagNews
- BagNews (on Tumblr)
- Boston Globe's The Big Picture
- Conscientious
- Conscientious Redux (on Tumblr)
- Duckrabbit
- Foto8
- Food For Your Eyes
- Gawker
- Getty Images' Blog
- Here
- Hotshoe
- Institute for Artist Management
- Invisible Ph t grapher Asia
- Journalism.co.uk
- Lens at The New York Times
- Lens Culture
- Lightstalkers
- Los Angeles Times Photography
- Mastering Multimedia
- Mostly True
- No Caption Needed
- PDN Pulse
- Photo Magazine (France)
- Photojournalismlinks
- Prison Photography
- Prison Photography (on Tumblr)
- Resolve - The liveBooks Photo Blog
- Romenesko
- Rob Galbraith DPI
- Saatchi Online
- StockPhotoTalk
- Telephoto
- The 37th Frame
- The Big Picture
- The Daily Nice
- The Click
- The Online Photographer
- The Russian Photos Blog
- The Travel Photographer
- Vice Magazine
- Wall Street Journal's Photo Blog
- WarShooter
- What's the jackanory?
