DSLRUsers.com

An article by Sebastian Smee in the Saturday Australian Review section has an interesting assertion about the loss of photography's acceptance as an art form. Interestingly, the basis of his argument is that too many people are doing it (the growth in digital camera use and our visual society) so it can't be art any more. Well that might set some thinking about the line I have often heard of 'art for the masses'. Despite relegating my pastime in the argument I enjoyed the article but any comments from our erudite administrators or those who read the article?

I thought the other main point he was making was that the reason photography had successfully been accepted as art, was that it had a fundamental tie with reality.

The digital 'revolution' in photography has mean that this link between photographic images and reality is much weaker, and therefore threatens photography as an art form. (His argument not mine)

It's a shame the article isn't online - it would be fun to hear energypolice's take on it...

I read it online - here is the link:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18925277-16947,00.html

It is a thought-provoking read.

The writer makes a couple of points:
- the ever increasing use of photography by the masses has somehow reduced its value as an art form
- photjournalism is a lost art because images cannot be believed, owing to the posssibility of digital alteration

I think both points can be argued.

I also think that digital manipulation has provided a whole new art form.

Not at all threatened. It means that as an artform, it's going to evolve and change quicker, with the elimination of equipment as a barrier to good photography, there is more pressure to create something different, push the boundaries, more creative vision will spur off, and it will no longer be the same artform as it once was, it will always be an artful expression.

As for digital reducing the integrity of photojournalism, well that's been debated since the early 90's, but I don't see too much of an issue in the world.

An interesting article..! I don't necessarily agree with him... anybody may be able to pick up a camera and take a picture, but not every picture is a work of art...

lol I guess I just can't buy into the arguements that the mass nature of the medium somehow reduces its artistic value... its seems to be the same old argument which has been turned on other artforms well before photography too and always seems to come back to anything associated with mass culture is somehow artistically unworthy...

His discussion on the relationship between photography and reality/truth was interesting... again, don't necessarily agree with everything he says... it may have an effect on how a media-savvy society views photojournalism in their newspapers, but I don't think it affects the artistic value... but I guess it all just heads back to the "what is art" and who decides that debate which will never be resolved (and neither should it lol).....

Now, whether photography as an artform is becoming less popular with gallery curators or the gallery-going public is something I hadn't thought about before... but I guess each artform goes in and out of fashion over time too...

hehe, just my two cents worth.... an interesting read!

KatieAnne

Trevor,

cricketfan wrote:The writer makes a couple of points:
- the ever increasing use of photography by the masses has somehow reduced its value as an art form

Isn't that like saying that because somebody's mum likes to do painting by numbers, the <insert any known painting of your choice> is no longer the masterpiece that it is.

Does the increasing number of people doing art classes at kindergarten, night school or the local retirement village reduce the value of painting as an art form?

The fact that there's more people doing photography seems to me to increase the value of the medium for those who are interested and exposed to it, whereas most people who acquire digicams will still only be shooting with them for the purposes of happy snaps and family memories, which remains an entirely legitmate use for them.

- photjournalism is a lost art because images cannot be believed, owing to the posssibility of digital alteration

Sounds to me as if the article may have been written by Energypolice.

Hands up those of us who have spent some time in a darkroom and produced a photo that was not a direct reproduction of what the camera "saw"?

(That's my hand being raised.)

I also think that digital manipulation has provided a whole new art form.

Exactly.

i'd have to say that my best photos were all taken on a FSLR and are exactly what the camera 'saw'. i would agree that with the technology now, it's true, photos can not be believed. and now rather than the photography being the art, the art is what the photographer can produce with the aid of a computer and software. having said that, i guess you can say that there are two different forms of photography as art now.


did that make sense to anyone????

i know that the whole new art form thing has already been said.... i just wanted to say it in a more confusing way...

babyvtr wrote:i know that the whole new art form thing has already been said

It certainly has....

babyvtr wrote:i just wanted to say it in a more confusing way...

Not at all, plus you get bonus points for giving your opinion in only 3 lines and without offending anybody - a rare achievement with this particular topic!

It's a well-written article, and it certainly incites discussion. However, I don't believe photography has anything to answer for.

the question of what it must do to retain interest as art is once again freshly alive

I really don't think that photography has to justify itself any more than people who collect garden gnomes have to justify themselves. And I might be a bit murky as to whether six parallel blue pastel lines painted on a 1m x 2m bit of canvas is art, let alone worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I don't ask paintings or the galleries who purchase them to justify themselves either.

Also I don't think an excess of photography devalues all photography any more than an excess of soccer players somehow devalues the game of soccer. Cream rises to the top, and dslrusers is one forum that showcases that.

Finally as to the opnion

One of the most common answers had nothing to do with art. It was a conviction that photography's great purpose was to record historical truth.

Well, that's one opinion. But you might as well argue that Words somehow cause problems because they can be used for fact AND fiction AND to sell things AND to insult people AND to deliberately mislead. Quite simply, yes words can be used to do all these things. Photography is no different.

Finally, I think all great art is infused with opinion (possibly even six pastel parallel lines painted on canvas). If a photograph leaves you cold then the 'artist' may well have misfired.

I could keep writing, but I'll stop here

Reading through these comments I mused that art is about perception of the artist. The argument for digitally 'enhanced' or some might say 'degraded' output from a digital camera is surely in the same realm so it has a claim to art. The paintbrushes of the 16th Century are now the PSCS2 etc that we use to put our perceptions in the public eye. I therefore still see DSLR output as art and we have had many examples in this forum. His other issue of the fatigue of imagery in society is more troubling.

Although your Mac or PC makes it easier image, 'manipulation' is hardly new; Hurley and Wilkins who are finally being recognised for their efforts in WW1 were thought to have blended a few images to create some of their iconic masterpieces. Interestingly, C.W.Bean had fought the British military establishment to get his own photographers, instead of using the official British photographers, because as he saw it..."

"Press photography in this war is such a construction of flimsy fake… That is the last thing a historian wants to build on."
Charles Bean, 12 May 1916

porlypopz wrote:"Press photography in this war is such a construction of flimsy fake… That is the last thing a historian wants to build on."
Charles Bean, 12 May 1916

lol, which reminds me of history studies at uni many years ago, examining Bean's selectivity in the way he wrote his War Dairies and the considerable spin used throughout them..... Bean struck me as rather akin to Hurley, except using words instead of images.... lol so I did grin when I read that quote...

KA

I don't believe that photography is dying as an artform. Sure there may not be as many large exhibitions dedicated to photography, but should one judge how successful a medium is as an artform based on how exhibitions there are each year?

There has been a lot of creative and innovative work on this forum to show that photography as an artform is still thriving but being displayed via a different way - forums, magazines and books (to name a few) instead of galleries.

Just my 2c - I have plenty more to say but little time to type it out .