Is there such a thing as art photography?

[Phil V]

Though we are and always have been in Europe .

of course we are - and as per my response we (the British) have a different relationship between church and state to the rest of Europe.

Not the sole difference; but this isn’t the time or place

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

A little off topic, but worth considering that at one stage religion was at least as much about politics as any kind of belief, and the present separation of faith and politics in Europe is historically unusual.

This is true.

Religion, often being the continuation of politics (in the sense of the aquisition of power) by other means, religious and political propaganda has long been a major, or possibly the major, driving force behind the creation of "art" in Europe Of course, many non-European societies developed their own religious / political art in a very similar way in places as widely seperated as China, South America and South East Asia.

 

[Cockney]

Can somthing be obviously transparent?

 

[ancient_mariner]

In Europe?
but we’re (mostly) British, and our head of state is also the head of the church, and the upper House of Parliament has a number of seats given to the church.

Though (weirdly) that only gives religion a small amount of influence here.

Whereas in the good ole US of A, where separation of church and state is written into the constitution, the power of religion in their politics is massive.

That was what I was thinking, comparing both the European past and the present situation with the US against the European present. I'd say that here possibly the strongest overt influence comes from trying not to upset those of faiths other than Christian.

 

[ancient_mariner]

This is true.

Religion, often being the continuation of politics (in the sense of the aquisition of power) by other means, religious and political propaganda has long been a major, or possibly the major, driving force behind the creation of "art" in Europe Of course, many non-European societies developed their own religious / political art in a very similar way in places as widely seperated as China, South America and South East Asia.

Just as we see in present society, art always follows the money and power. That creativity won't pay for itself you know.

 

[droj]

Just as we see in present society, art always follows the money and power.

That's just too glib, Toni. Without naming names, some artists have a lot more integrity than others.

 

[sphexx]

That's just too glib, Toni. Without naming names, some artists have a lot more integrity than others.

It’s not necessarily the artists but the gallery owners .

 

[Phil V]

That was what I was thinking, comparing both the European past and the present situation with the US against the European present. I'd say that here possibly the strongest overt influence comes from trying not to upset those of faiths other than Christian.

Well that’s not entirely true, in Europe (notwithstanding the previous) we have enshrined in law a protection for all religions.

Now it could be argued that some religions lean on that protection more than others. But the fact is they’re treated equally in law.

I believe that’s a mistake, we shouldn’t allow someone’s made up ‘beliefs’ to offer them any privileges that might breach others of societies rules.

Any indoctrination IMHO is morally wrong, no matter how much the perpetrators believe they’re ‘right’.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well that’s not entirely true, in Europe (notwithstanding the previous) we have enshrined in law a protection for all religions.

Now it could be argued that some religions lean on that protection more than others. But the fact is they’re treated equally in law.

I believe that’s a mistake, we shouldn’t allow someone’s made up ‘beliefs’ to offer them any privileges that might breach others of societies rules.

Any indoctrination IMHO is morally wrong, no matter how much the perpetrators believe they’re ‘right’.

I agree the law should be both neutral and equal. It should protect the right to hold beliefs, but give them no special privileges or advantages.
I would equate aspects of organised religions with private clubs and businesses, and some of their functions with charities. tax and other laws should apply equally as to other organisations.

 

[sphexx]

I believe that’s a mistake, we shouldn’t allow someone’s made up ‘beliefs’ to offer them any privileges that might breach others of societies rules.

Agreed but since they are all made up (some a long time ago), how do you distinguish between them? There isn’t any logical process to separate them so the only way is to make sure all their practices are within the current laws that apply to everyone.

We set out on a slippery slope when we allowed Sikhs to wear turbans instead of helmets on motorbikes -- not sure if that’s still the law — though if all the exceptions were like that it wouldn’t be much of a problem.

 

[ancient_mariner]

That's just too glib, Toni. Without naming names, some artists have a lot more integrity than others.

I did put a wink after it to indicate that the post wasn't completely serious. TBH I don't see making art for money as being prostitution, so much as a recognition an artist needs to fund their hobby/lifestyle somehow. I suspect a significant reason why the art world is the shape it is has been caused by the patrons needing to demonstrate their dollars bought something special.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A photograph has no idea what category it belongs in.
Categorisation is done by people.
Differing people will categorise the same image differently, and according to their own subjective standards.

Labeling an image as Art photography is one of subjective categorisation.

 

[droj]

... I don't see making art for money as being prostitution, so much as a recognition an artist needs to fund their hobby/lifestyle somehow. I suspect a significant reason why the art world is the shape it is has been caused by the patrons needing to demonstrate their dollars bought something special.

Most of us have to make a living - artists included! A particular artist's integrity - whether the nature of the work has become a slave to its ability to make money - is another matter.

You're right about the patrons in a large sector of the market, and gallery owners may well be profit-driven too. How complicit artists are with the business side of things is up to them. I don't recall Van Gogh ever making much in his lifetime. That doesn't mean he would have spurned it.

The cultural value of a work is determined by its inner significance, not what it sells for.

 

[droj]

Labeling an image as Art photography is one of subjective categorisation.

Not entirely. If somebody's going to label something, they should be able to argue their case. If they can't back it up, then yes, it's subjective, but the label isn't then worth much.

Much of the time, labels are superfluous - the nature of the work is what counts, and should be self-justifying.

 

[jerry12953]

On the subject of money it is worth remembering that some at least of the well-known "art" photographers in the UK also have teaching jobs in universities which enable them to pursue their vision regardless of whether it brings in any dosh or not. This has the double advantage of giving them lots of friends in the world of education who can give them the moral and intellectual support they need to carry on.

 

[Cockney]

Bright blue skies. Fluffy white clouds. Dodgy skin tones. Bright sunshine but no shadows. Massive colour saturation.
"Toy story" images are neither art or photography.

 

[Dave Canon]

And if there is, how can you tell?

Only just looked at this thread. The Photography subject is always in the Art department of Universities and colleges.

Dave

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Only just looked at this thread. The Photography subject is always in the Art department of Universities and colleges.

Dave

Absolutely
Which is why it it is rarely much use for a career in industrial, scientific, advertising or commercial photography.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not entirely. If somebody's going to label something, they should be able to argue their case. If they can't back it up, then yes, it's subjective, but the label isn't then worth much.

Much of the time, labels are superfluous - the nature of the work is what counts, and should be self-justifying.

In which case most "art" photography fails miserably.

 

[Pavel M]

Absolutely
Which is why it it is rarely much use for a career in industrial, scientific, advertising or commercial photography.

That is a rather blanket statement. No doubt there are good and bad programs and programs suited for career in photography or not. I have not been enrolled in any of the art photography programs. I took 2 courses about 30 years apart. One was superb, the other was abysmal. I know good photographers that emerged from the programs in my area. Usually, (but not always) blanket statements are a sign of ignorance and extreme prejudice. I think that this is one of those cases.

 

[Pavel M]

In which case most "art" photography fails miserably.

Wow, another blanket statement? Why does most art photography fail miserably? Because any label on a photograph should be justified? Because the nature of work is what counts? I do not even see the link between these statements and your claim that most art work fails miserably. I certainly do not see causal relationship. Where is the beef?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That is a rather blanket statement. No doubt there are good and bad programs and programs suited for career in photography or not. I have not been enrolled in any of the art photography programs. I took 2 courses about 30 years apart. One was superb, the other was abysmal. I know good photographers that emerged from the programs in my area. Usually, (but not always) blanket statements are a sign of ignorance and extreme prejudice. I think that this is one of those cases.

I studied a 3year full time course in Photography at The London College of printing and graphic art in the 50's prior to It becoming part of the university of London and Prior to any degree courses in Photography were available in the UK. It covered all the technical and and practical aspects of Photography including a wide range of graphic art, mechanical printing, with an emphasis of Commercial journalistic and photography destined for print. The syllabus covered Graphic art and fine art in general. And we visited all the major exhibitions and galleries. and covered all the major works of artists and photographers. It was an extremely rounded course.

After A life time working in the Photographic Graphic art and Printing fields, I spent my last ten years working as the Print and Photographic manager at a major college.

I might well be biased, but I do know what I am talking about.

 

[Cockney]

I studied a 3year full time course in Photography at The London College of printing and graphic art in the 50's prior to It becoming part of the university of London and Prior to any degree courses in Photography were available in the UK. It covered all the technical and and practical aspects of Photography including a wide range of graphic art, mechanical printing, with an emphasis of Commercial journalistic and photography destined for print. The syllabus covered Graphic art and fine art in general. And we visited all the major exhibitions and galleries. and covered all the major works of artists and photographers. It was an extremely rounded course.

After A life time working in the Photographic Graphic art and Printing fields, I spent my last ten years working as the Print and Photographic manager at a major college.

I might well be biased, but I do know what I am talking about.

It seems Pavel may be a piece of work. Don't rise to it.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It seems Pavel may be a piece of work. Don't rise to it.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt: it might just be that English is (by his own claim) a second language. It's very easy to write "correct" English that is completely lacking in the subtleties of colloquialism and so obscure the subtleties of what you intended to convey.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Wow, another blanket statement? Why does most art photography fail miserably? Because any label on a photograph should be justified? Because the nature of work is what counts? I do not even see the link between these statements and your claim that most art work fails miserably. I certainly do not see causal relationship. Where is the beef?

I was directly answering you statement...
" Much of the time, labels are superfluous - the nature of the work is what counts, and should be self-justifying. "
Which itself was unconditional.

In the UK, unlike the USA, the market for and the appreciation of "Art" photography has a vanishingly small acceptance and market place.
Those that produce it, have an equally poor visibility among the Public,

Universities and colleges have been teaching Fine art photography since the 60's.
That is a very large cohort of potential photographers covering more than 60 years. a majority of whom never work in the industry.
In all that time the reputation and acceptance of photography as a fine art has not gained the slightest momentum.

It is noticeable that most of the top advertising, fashion, Industrial, Commercial photographer are with out any formal training in photography at degree level.
I would suggest that the emphasis and focus, by University and college departments on the limited aspect of fine Art photography, has proved to be unproductive..
I would suggest such courses are a handicap to a majority of students. and a more commercial and business focussed program would provide better career outcomes.

To a large extent a Business/ Marketing degree is more useful to a budding photographer than a photographic fine art degree.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Usually, (but not always) blanket statements are a sign of ignorance and extreme prejudice. I think that this is one of those cases.

People who take 'blanket statements' on internet forums literally and think they ought to be expanded upon and qualified are taking life (and forum life in particular) too seriously.

IMO of course.

You've created some good debate and have some interesting things to say but on the whole you take things far too literally and seriously for me. This is something I've often noted in people with scientific/engineering backgrounds who are used to having clearly defined parameters to work within and measurable results. The trouble for them when they delve into the creative arena is that art is fuzzy and slippery. You can do something 'wrong' and yet the result works in art. You can let chance play its part and produce art. This seems to mess with the scientific head!

Former cricketer and now writer and thinker Ed Smith once said; "When you play cricket to impress other people you have lost the point of playing cricket." Smith played cricket at the highest level, albeit briefly, so I think that's a sufficiently informed opinion. (His books Luck: What It Means and Why It Matters and What Sport Tells Us About Life are good reads applicable to art/photography.)

The concept can be applied to photography and art.

Universities and colleges have been teaching Fine art photography since the 60's.


In all that time the reputation and acceptance of photography as a fine art has not gained the slightest momentum.

The Tate now purchases photographic works, as do other UK art galleries. Not just works that use lens based media. That is an example of how the perception of photography has changed in the UK art world in recent decades. I've seen quite a few photographs in themed shows of art the Tate Liverpool and round the corner at Open Eye (a photography gallery) I've seen work that was more installation art than it was photography. The edges have blurred.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

To a large extent a Business/ Marketing degree is more useful to a budding photographer than a photographic fine art degree.

Among the many successful commercial or press photographers I met between 1967 and 1985, when I was involved in the business, I can't recall any who had studied photography at art school. They were generally self taught, pragmatic individuals who had a flair for finding niches that offered them good opportunities for profit.

Then again, during my 30 years in IT, I found that I was far from alone in not having any formal training, even though I delivered a substantial amount of training for programming and data management.

The obsession with "qualifications" seems to be something that creeps into new areas when the academic industry spots opportunities for expansion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It would be interesting to know how many people here have ever bought a Photograph as Fine Art.
I would suggest that most, non family oriented Images, are bought as memories of places we love, or as decoration.
Almost none as representing fine art.
Companies buy art as decoration of their public spaces and to raise their profile, a majority of which make some connection to their marketplace.
Most are produce by commercial photographer or bought from agencies. very few care whether it is classed as fine art or not.
Fine Art Photography is largely incestuous, as it is designed and produced to be appreciated by and for other other fine art photographers.

 

[Cockney]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt: it might just be that English is (by his own claim) a second language. It's very easy to write "correct" English that is completely lacking in the subtleties of colloquialism and so obscure the subtleties of what you intended to convey.

You may be right, let's hope so.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Among the many successful commercial or press photographers I met between 1967 and 1985, when I was involved in the business, I can't recall any who had studied photography at art school. They were generally self taught, pragmatic individuals who had a flair for finding niches that offered them good opportunities for profit.

Then again, during my 30 years in IT, I found that I was far from alone in not having any formal training, even though I delivered a substantial amount of training for programming and data management.

The obsession with "qualifications" seems to be something that creeps into new areas when the academic industry spots opportunities for expansion.

Very true.
It must never be forgotten that "Education" is an industry.
Their best interests, and those of their students and those of their future employers should coincide, but rarely do.

 

[Ed Sutton]

It would be interesting to know how many people hear have ever bought a Photograph as Fine Art.

Everyone who buys a print from the Magnum print sales? Or are they buying prints as photography? That would be a novel idea!

Fine Art Photography is largely incestuous, as it is designed and produced to be appreciated by and for other other fine art photographers.

You can say the same about 'camera club photography'.

 

[sphexx]

You can do something 'wrong' and yet the result works in art.

That works in science too sometimes.We have current example with the error in the AstraZeneca trials where the dose was in error in some of them and yet that proved more effective than the full dose. Actually I think it’s now believed that the effectiveness of the lower dose was enhanced by the longer time interval in those cases — I guess the longer interval may have been due to faffing about deciding further consideration of what to do when the error was discovered.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Tate now purchases photographic works, as do other UK art galleries. Not just works that use lens based media. That is an example of how the perception of photography has changed in the UK art world in recent decades. I've seen quite a few photographs in themed shows of art the Tate Liverpool and round the corner at Open Eye (a photography gallery) I've seen work that was more installation art than it was photography. The edges have blurred.

The important galleries and museums have always had collections of important Photographs. Most have now been reclassified as Fine Art. While the Academic world sees them through the lens of Fine Art. the General public may see them as historically important or in some way interesting.
Visitors would be hard pushed to name any Fine Art photographer, or recognise their work.

Everyone who buys a print from the Magnum print sales? Or are they buying prints as photography? That would be a novel idea!

You can say the same about 'camera club photography'.

I do not have any Idea how many people buy photographs from Magnum for their own use? but I would not class much of their output as "Fine Art" though some undoubtedly is.
It would be interesting to know how people now class Cartier Bresson's work, When I was at college it was exampled as Photojournalism, and later as street photography. Now it is probably redefined as Art. I would suggest most private buyers buy prints because they like them, and to put them on their walls. They do not care whether they are originals, actual photographic prints. or limited edition "Glicee" prints.

There are of course that rare person who simply collects photographs.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The important galleries and museums have always had collections of important Photographs. Most have now been reclassified as Fine Art. While the Academic world sees them through the lens of Fine Art. the General public may see them as historically important or in some way interesting.
Visitors would be hard pushed to name any Fine Art photographer, or recognise their work.


I do not have any Idea how many people buy photographs from Magnum for their own use? but I would not class much of their output as "Fine Art" though some undoubtedly is.
It would be interesting to know how people now class Cartier Bresson's work, When I was at college it was exampled as Photojournalism, and later as street photography. Now it is probably redefined as Art. I would suggest most private buyers buy prints because they like them, and to put them on their walls. They do not care whether they are originals, actual photographic prints. or limited edition "Glicee" prints.

There are of course that rare person who simply collects photographs.

Discussing club photograph is a risky business, perhaps best left untouched.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The important galleries and museums have always had collections of important Photographs. Most have now been reclassified as Fine Art.

Historically the Tate did not collect photographs because it didn't consider them to be art.

I do not have any Idea how many people buy photographs from Magnum for their own use? but I would not class much of their output as "Fine Art" though some undoubtedly is.

You're out of touch with what Magnum is these days. It hasn't been a purely photojournalistic organisation for some time. e.g. https://www.magnumphotos.com/shop/collections/the-afronauts-by-cristina-de-middel/

There are of course that rare person who simply collects photographs.

They have it right IMO - forget factionalising photography and think of it as a whole.

 

[Pavel M]

People who take 'blanket statements' on internet forums literally and think they ought to be expanded upon and qualified are taking life (and forum life in particular) too seriously.

IMO of course.

You've created some good debate and have some interesting things to say but on the whole you take things far too literally and seriously for me. This is something I've often noted in people with scientific/engineering backgrounds who are used to having clearly defined parameters to work within and measurable results. The trouble for them when they delve into the creative arena is that art is fuzzy and slippery. You can do something 'wrong' and yet the result works in art. You can let chance play its part and produce art. This seems to mess with the scientific head!

Former cricketer and now writer and thinker Ed Smith once said; "When you play cricket to impress other people you have lost the point of playing cricket." Smith played cricket at the highest level, albeit briefly, so I think that's a sufficiently informed opinion. (His books Luck: What It Means and Why It Matters and What Sport Tells Us About Life are good reads applicable to art/photography.)

The concept can be applied to photography and art.



The Tate now purchases photographic works, as do other UK art galleries. Not just works that use lens based media. That is an example of how the perception of photography has changed in the UK art world in recent decades. I've seen quite a few photographs in themed shows of art the Tate Liverpool and round the corner at Open Eye (a photography gallery) I've seen work that was more installation art than it was photography. The edges have blurred.

Ed, I find your comment both thoughtful and entertaining. However, I do not respond to ad hominem comments (I see that as inappropriate and unnecessary and often offensive), so I will not respond to yours.

I agree that scientific thinking is not well suited for creating or even understanding art. Unfortunately even though I know that, I can not walk away from my upbringing and my 50 years of work experience. Science my hammer in my hand and so every problem seems to be a nail. Still, being both accurate and precise in your use of a language is very important. The language is a communication tool and if used ineffectively or lazily or with dogmatic over-generalizations, the communication fails. And the purpose of a forum is communication.

I do agree when you say: The trouble for them when they delve into the creative arena is that art is fuzzy and slippery. You can do something 'wrong' and yet the result works in art. You can let chance play its part and produce art. I am trying to shift gears in my head, but it is a difficult process and I see only a small progress.

 

[droj]

To a large extent a Business/ Marketing degree is more useful to a budding photographer than a photographic fine art degree.

Yes, but perhaps only in terms of livelihood rather than cultural content.

Fine Art Photography is largely incestuous, as it is designed and produced to be appreciated by and for other other fine art photographers.

Largely true, I think, even though the term 'fine art' lacks precise definition.

 

[Nod]

Perhaps the OP could define what he believes constitutes "art photography" and maybe explain why he thinks there is such a thing.

 

[myotis]

Perhaps the OP could define what he believes constitutes "art photography" and maybe explain why he thinks there is such a thing.

But isn't that the question being asked by the OP?

 

[Nod]

He seems to have spent the rest of the thread arguing that there is such a thing so it would be interesting to hear his definition.