Are Photographers Artists?
Sure, they may very well be. A good photographer might even be a better artist than a skilled photo-realist painter. That may sound shocking but it’s absolutely true.
Let’s imagine the following experiment.
On location, present a landscape scene to a fine art photographer and a photo-realist painter and ask each of them to produce their best work of art.
The photo-realist, knowing that his method will take some time, will snap a few photos and head out to his studio to commence painting. He is a master at what he does and all he needs is a good photos that he will duplicate faithfully.
Now, for the photographer. This particular fine art photographer is exceptionally skilled at what he does, as well. He is an artist. He’s really intent on producing a work of art, a snapshot will simply not do.
He starts by assessing the view. He will view it from ground level. He’ll climb a tree and get a higher perspective. He’ll consider the best time of day and may even watch the seasons through an entire year before he decides the best time to shoot. Why? Because he’s an artist.
He also carefully selects the film he’ll use, the f-stop and filters. The shot will be very carefully cropped for the best composition. In the lab (or digital photo editor) he’ll painstakingly perfect the image, darkening some portions and altering others until he gets the exact image he’s after.
When finished, the two works are displayed side by side.
Your first thought is that there is no way the photographer can come close to measuring up against the artistic skill of a photo-realist. Maybe not. After all, he just snapped a picture, right? And the painter spent countless hours at the easel to complete his work. How could the photographer ever be considered the better “artist”?
But remember, the photo-realist, as I described him, is not much of an artist; just a highly skilled craftsman and there is indeed a difference.
As expected the photo-realist’s work is flawless. You may be awestruck at the amazing skill of the photo-realist painter, but all he did was to paint an exact copy of the photo. He may have done a bang-up job as a master craftsman, but he didn’t function as a true artist! Everything he did was mechanical, not much different than a photo printer.
The photographer, on the other hand, made every effort to use his tools and skills to produce a work of art. His goal was the creation of of art. He functioned as an artist.Â
If you don’t agree, imagine this: Show the two works to several people without telling them that one is actually a painting. They will see the photo-realist’s work, which will be a faithful copy of a snapshot, as much less impressive than the photographer’s well-orchestrated, beautifully-crafted photograph.
The fine art photographer, if he indeed is a true artist, will outshine the perfectly-skilled photo-realist every time. The only thing that can change that is if the photo-realist is also a good artist. If so, he too will very carefully orchestrate a convincing and effective work of art rather than to just paint what he sees.
Sphere: Related Content
Stumble it!
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 am
A thoroughly thought provoking and intelligently written piece and an angle that should give many people pause for thought on the subject.
It’s late here, but I saw your comment on my blog and had to pay you a visit. From what I’ve seen so far I’ll be back again for more
Thanks for a very good art blog - you’ve been blogrolled!
October 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
hi this is one answer me as an artist ha wanted to know, also i have answered is photography an art? well yes infact it is read this.
If you look at a photograph (take natural scenery) it is just a copy of what you have seen. You can make the photo better changing the camera to a much better one, or even change the technology, but can you change the scenery?.
With painting you can express your feelings, views, emotions, etc. you can change the scenery on a painting and make it more beautiful that it already is, or make it look worse.
You can’t do that naturally with photography, but you can use Photoshop to make the image better or worse.
Take pain or a mental condition for instance, you can show this in paintings and how the person is suffering from it. But in photography you can’t show this, you can show someone looking like their in pain and that’s all.
Photography is a type of art in a way which gives you an exact picture which you can’t modify naturally; you can adjust the setting like (zoom, brightness and colour etc).
A camera is mainly used to capture the most precious moments in life and also meanings.
In paintings, you can show what is happening and who is in it, with photography you can’t really express your thoughts, so it is quite hard to explain what is happening in the image.
Paintings can be an eye to your mind.
In paintings, you have complete control over what the composition will end up like, (the colours, the lighting, etc). In photography, you have to find a way to accomplish the perfect lighting, angle, shadow, etc.
Many people prefer photography to art, as you don’t need to bother trying to show the shape or texture, as you need to in art.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 am
Photography IS painting, with light!
You can NOT say that you can’t capture a photographers state of mind or emotion or what is happening with both the photographer and the subject, because is the execution, photographers make the same exact decisions as painters to portray feeling and emotion- considering light, color, texture, angle, etc.
A photographer makes these choices based on time of day or year, cloudy or sunny, filtered/unfiltered, zoomed/deadpan, etc. While a painter makes these decisions based on absolutely no constraints such as these, but these elements hold true in both situations, making both provocative and captivating. A picture of a person is just as emotional as a painting, as you still ask yourself in both situations- why did the artist chose this person? why is this person feeling/looking like this? Is this documentation of the artist? Are we relating to it? Is the artist relating to this person, in turn relating to us? And all indications of answers are conveyed through light, color, texture, composition, etc- all elements present in both painting and photo!
oh and to say that a camera is meant to capture only the precious moments in life, we can say the same about painting and scenery. Either way is only referencing to it’s more commercially, “historical”, social use and not considering the WIDELY artistic USE of it. As painting could be pin hold as the only method to capture landscapes of serene places that then in turn end up in gold frames on walls of old fancy houses.
In conclusion- they are both the same. You can construct as scene either way, mind you in different ways of execution and process, that hold their purpose in the consideration of the artist, subject, light, time, color, texture, composition, etc.
They are the same in that you should ask yourself the same questions in interpreting both, and consider only in process what makes them different. And then asking how that difference makes a difference in the artists life and interpretation, not your own, and strictly to the literal work itself.