Photography vs. Art

[Exaggerated]

Most people agree that, for pure practical realism, photography captures a physical scene better than a painting. But what makes art equal or superior to photography? What are the relative roles of artists versus photographers?

What, as a related question, is art? Can photography be as much art as any painting?

[darkwoon]

Photography is art, just as painting. Both drawing tools and cameras allow the artist to create a vision, a dream, a feeling, and share it with others. What counts is not the tool used or the amount of realism; it is the artistic intend, and that the picture can convey something more than its pure material value.

[Mirage]

Since this is kind of a debate, I'm moving this to ROTW.

Art :arrow: ROTW

[TigerBoy]

Photography is art, just as painting. Both drawing tools and cameras allow the artist to create a vision, a dream, a feeling, and share it with others. What counts is not the tool used or the amount of realism; it is the artistic intend, and that the picture can convey something more than its pure material value.

I've heard artists state it is whatever an artist presents as art.

The issue I have with that is that the line between a pile of junk and 'art' only the artist 'gets' becomes invisible. Many 'artists' attempt to market an idea with a weak vehicle for that idea (i.e. one that has little effort or skill invested in it, or is so obscure it fails) or the idea itself is uninteresting or unappealing.

I think a more meaningful question is "what is GOOD art". I don't care what tool or medium is used.

[Manjusri]

Photography is a form of art. In my opinion it's one of the easiest forms; unlike other forms of art (drawing, painting, etc) it doesn't require a large amount of practice. in fact, some lenses do all the work for you.

Now don't get me wrong, being a photographer still takes talent, i can't get a nice photo for the life of me. It just doesn't take many years of hand and wrist techniques such as drawing or painting.

Each different form of art is equivalent to another, no form is superior.

I think a more meaningful question is "what is GOOD art".

All art is good art, and all good art is bad art.

People appreciate different forms of art. An abstract painting that may just look like a splatter of random colors could look like masterpiece to the eye of another person.

[FreeFall]

I feel art is subjective. I've seen girls, of course, in a photography class. They had an ant on a bounty paper towel and used some type of photoshop to make the ant a green gradient and the bounty paper towel, sepia toned. Her description was something about how the ant is despair in a world full of happy people, the take on depression.
now that I typed it out, it doesn't sound as awful as I feel, I think you just need to see it though.

My one friend hopes to be a photographer and she takes incredible photos because she knows how to work with the lighting (natural, florescent, black light even) and shadows and angles. She knows when things need to be fluid or stiff, and she never uses photoshop unless the model has expressed they want their acne removed (she always gets final say though). It's more than *click* yay I'm an artist! To capture the beauty you have tof ind it, mold it, and seek it.

[ImCoolBeans]

Art goes a lot further than just fine arts -- you don't need to paint or draw to make art. There are performing arts, musical arts, language arts, visual arts and others too. Dancing is just as much of an art as playing guitar is, and that's just as much of an art as painting, photography or writing is. Art is a mechanism that people use to express themselves with and it doesn't matter what medium they choose to do it in.

[Cicero]

I think both are very talented. But usually if you're an artist you can take a pretty good picture, cause you have the vision in your head. I like art a little more because it provides more meaning, like it can have hidden meanings and different translations. Whereas a picture is direct, and doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

[Stryker125]

This is a pretty broad topic, and I'm not the best at explaining, but here goes.

"I have pretended to go mad in order to go mad in order to tell you the things I need to. I call it art. Because art is the word we give to our feelings make public. And art doesn't worry anyone."

Everyone's already given pretty good answers, but I still wanna jump in :P

Photography is a type of art. Now if you're asking what makes drawing or painting superior to photography, the answer is nothing. Neither is superior. A buddy of mine explained photography as "When I see something I like, I get to keep looking at it." And I think that's pretty cool. As I imagine the same with photography, drawing is more about what you see, how you see it, and your connection to it. I guess all art is.

Art doesn't reproduce visible things. Art makes things visible.

[ShatteredWings]

Art CAN be anything
That does not mean anything IS art.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

It is art, however less creative than other arts like music or painting. Photographic art comes from photos, which are taken from the REAL world, not the world that is a human mind.

[Guillermo]

It is art, however less creative than other arts like music or painting.

I don't understand. How is photography any less 'creative' than music or painting? It takes creative, well-disciplined skills in each and every art form to express one's means.

[Horizon]

I can't believe this hasn't been stated, but honestly, Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder. Art is an extremely broad subject. All art is good art. All art is bad art. I just depends who is looking at it, and what they see in it. Art is the freedom of self expression, and self expression comes in an infinite amount of possibilities. I think art is a very wonderful thing, and I appreciate all forms of art, and art is just so interesting. I love to see new photographs, or paintings, or sculptures, or hear new songs, read new poems. I love interpreting the emotion and message myself, and then compare to the author's interpretation, or the photographers, sculptor's, or the poet. I love any kind of art, and I feel the term 'art' should not be subject to being labeled only 'fine art' or anything else, but self expression, because that is the heart of art.

[FreeFall]

I don't understand. How is photography any less 'creative' than music or painting? It takes creative, well-disciplined skills in each and every art form to express one's means.
Not that I disagree with you but I think he meant in terms of time or creation.
My friend takes a many couple of hours to get the shot she feels is filled with art and not just an image of something. Setting up her camera, setting herself up, moving around to get the lighting, setting the model/object, moving them/that, searching for the correct/desired light.
I on the other hand play with water colors. I have to get my mat, tape the paper down, decided what images I want to mesh together to get my scene, sketch that, mix my colors, place the water where I want it to blend, depending it can take a couple of days or a few hours.
Maybe something that it takes more time to have decided what to create and feel it, because a photographer, what they want is already made for them, they just need to set it up. Though I disagree with that.

Photography though takes as much creativity as a marble sculpture, just like acrylic painting can take very little. If someone's very determined and passionate about photography it lasts a good while. Portraits and wedding photos obviously cannot be over like half an hour for the patron's sake. There's much more to it than "click done boom".

[Lost in the Echo]

Photography is a form of art.

[deadpie]

Art CAN be anything
That does not mean anything IS art.

I don't know about that. I'd have to say just about anything is art by now. Not just in a philosophical term or appreciation for things, but the fact people have literally done everything you can imagine with their works in the past one hundred years. People have used the strangest things you could think of as part of their media. A guy fills an entire gallery with a bunch of dirt here. (http://www.diaart.org/sites/page/52/1365) Andres Serrano photographed different types of feces. Damien Hirst preserved a shark in formaldehyde in a large tank. Art has evolved into something much more avant garde and open.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I don't understand. How is photography any less 'creative' than music or painting? It takes creative, well-disciplined skills in each and every art form to express one's means.

In photography, the environment is presented for you. It's just often edited for effect.

[TigerBoy]

In photography, the environment is presented for you.

Not always true, and not an entirely fair comment in my view.

First off, even in the case where that is strictly true photographers may have to go to great lengths be it extreme patience or personal risk to capture some shots. While they capture what is already there, they can still capture things that we wouldn't normally see and do so in an aesthetically pleasing manner. There is vision, devotion and artistry involved in that process.

Many photographers compose their subjects entirely for effect, whether it is a black and white close up of anonymous parts of posed nude bodies, still life, whatever. They have complete control over the lighting (position, colour, amount) and composition: all of that requires artistic vision.

[nick]

Most people agree that, for pure practical realism, photography captures a physical scene better than a painting.
For pure realism you may be correct, a photograph should be an accurate recording of the scene, but I don't accept that means that it captures the scene better, just more accurately. Accuracy isn't everything, a painting will often be intended to recreate a mood or emotion and may well succeed better at that than a photograph would do.

I don't understand. How is photography any less 'creative' than music or painting? It takes creative, well-disciplined skills in each and every art form to express one's means.
Well creating music, as opposed to performing, is an entirely different thing. Photography is basically a recording medium. Yes there is creativity in framing the shot, choosing the exposure and depth of field, traditional darkroom skills or modern post-processing, but at the end of the day you are still capturing an image. You can't compare that to what Mozart for example, or any of the great composers, have done with music where they create something of great beauty out of nothing at all, just from their own genius and imagination.

[Human]

Most people agree that, for pure practical realism, photography captures a physical scene better than a painting. But what makes art equal or superior to photography? What are the relative roles of artists versus photographers?

What, as a related question, is art? Can photography be as much art as any painting?

Photography is art but I think that taking a painting of a scene can be more emotional as experts can look into the artists strokes and decipher how he was feeling... the painting can directly capture emotion through the artists strokes.

[Gigablue]

I think photography is a form of art. I requires skill to capture a specific vision, and if done properly, can evoke emotions, just like any other art form.

[ShatteredWings]

I don't know about that. I'd have to say just about anything is art by now. Not just in a philosophical term or appreciation for things, but the fact people have literally done everything you can imagine with their works in the past one hundred years. People have used the strangest things you could think of as part of their media. A guy fills an entire gallery with a bunch of dirt here. (http://www.diaart.org/sites/page/52/1365) Andres Serrano photographed different types of feces. Damien Hirst preserved a shark in formaldehyde in a large tank. Art has evolved into something much more avant garde and open.

No I'd agree that's art.
What I'm saying is... That kind of thing can be art. But anyone just dumping (to use your example) dirt in a room or taking pictures of their dumps isn't NECESSARILY art.

But these people who put blank canvas and sell them for millions, I'd argue are laziness and capitalizing on stupidity rather than art.