Is Photography Not Art?
Is it or is it not? Is it art or merely technology? The debate seems to be an endless one from art critics, enthusiasts writers, artists, those who consider themselves as art experts.
The Guardian's photography writer, Sean O'Hagan, wrote his argument with another writer Johathan Jones about whether photography is art. In his article, Jones wrote about the $6,5million photograph by Peter Lik called Phantom, in which he remarked that beauty is cheap if you point a camera at a grand phenomenon of nature. Is it? Is he saying that the artworks made by Peter Lik is a rip-off of some millions of dollars?
Well, here's what LaFOTOgalerie thinks...
Photograph titled "Over Populated" by Indonesian artist "Roe".
If you look at the photograph above, it somewhat seems more unrealistic and less than surrealistic. It appears to be clear that this photograph requires camera manipulation, which in this case, a multi-exposure capture. Multi-exposure captures can now be shot by cameras simply because of technological advancement.
Does it, then, make this photograph fail to be qualified as an art and simply a cheap result of technological advancement?
But what qualifies an artist to be an artist? When I was an art student, I learned that an art is what the artist calls it to be art. Art is afterall, ultimately, an expression of self, not only for the artists but also for the collector of arts.
We are now working with many photographers who consider themselves as artists, and who would like to have their photographs to be considered as artworks because they have created photographic images out of visions, dreams, and imaginations into photographic images that can be realized into prints.
Not indifferent to paintings, taking artistic photographs requires the applications of art principles, which result begins with imagination in the beginning before the image is being captured by a camera. It takes equal power of imagination in photographers' minds as other kinds of artist to be able to produce artistic photography.
I'm not talking about taking family photos or holiday photos here, I'm talking about art, self-expression of an individual through imagination, emotions, thoughts, feelings, and the need to share them.
The difference between painting and taking a photograph, for example, is that when a painter paints, he/she is painting on an empty canvas. A painter would slowly build on canvas to make a creation based on his imagination using some very pliable tools: his hands, paints and paintbrushes. A photographer, on the other hand, may have similar imagination but often finding it hard to find the right shapes, moments, lights, or place to create his imagination because of his restrictions with his tools: a camera and a lens. Finding the right moment, lights, shapes, or place, a photographer can then translate his imagination into his photographic artworks. It can take as much time for a photographer to be able to produce the photos of his life.
Photograph titled "Why" by Indonesian artist "Roe".
Take this photograph entitled "Why", for example. It creates an almost perfect question mark to express his questions over the confusions that people can have living in megapolis city such as Jakarta: the routines, the traffics, the lifestyle, the jobs that create individualities of individuals. This photograph is born out of the idea of an artist with questions about life, his imagination allows him to interpret himself using his camera to create shapes, moving colors, and dynamic textures from asphalt roads, night lights, and shadows.
The process of curating photographs is an interesting experience. When I browsed into many photos, I can be fully aware of the changes in my emotions. Sometimes they can be positive, sometimes negative. Some photographs stay in my mind for a long time, some for a life time. Some photographs are void of emotions and meanings.
We think that photography is art when the artist understands what art is, and what it takes to create. An art photography has to serve the purpose of art as well as follow the principles of art. Some photographs are out of compositions, some are out of messages. Yes it takes technology to make photography, but technology is not a culprit of art, it is merely another tool to create art. With all the right combination of balanced formulas, a photograph can be invaluably meaningful for anyone who sees it, and it can be an unforgettable emotional resonance and even life experience. Such photographs are definitely pieces of artwork!
See more of Roe's artworks :
Sean O'Hagan's Article :
Jonathan Jones' Article : http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless#gsc.tab=0
