Reflecting on the thread about the 101 cliches of photography, it strikes me that the serious pursuit of photography - as opposed to happy snapping - brings with it the risk of a certain high-mindedness, a certain hauteur of would-be auteurs.

And it occurs to me that a lot of the discussion of this ilk is predicated on the notion that serious photographers aspire to being serious artists or at least to creating serious art.

As far as I'm concerned, photography is to art what golf is to sport.

Sure, golf is a sort of sport and it requires technical skill and practise. and the best golfers do things that less talented mortals can't do. The best golfers are worthy stars and celebrities. But golf does not require the speed and athleticism and fitness that are required in tennis, or soccer, or hockey or skiing.

I'm not saying that golf is not a sport, but I am saying that it is a much less demanding sport than other sports - after all, it's a sport that can be played by semi-invalids if they have enough money for a golf cart.

And I respectfully suggest, as a guy whose main "creative" expression is photography, that photography too is an art, but not on the same level as performing arts, nor on the same level as plastic arts that conjure up something out of formless raw materials. The most inspiring photography is probably infused with artistic sensibility and insight, and it may well even trigger the sort of reflections that are the hallmark of great art.

But let's be frank - it is art "lite".

Photography is a pleasurable pursuit for all who press the shutter. It can become a voyage of exploration and discovery for those who practise is purposefully. And it can yield impressive "artistic" results for the lucky few, but with much less talent and investment of time and effort than the classical music, dance et al.

I would agree with you, but not for the reasons you state. Both consume lots of money, can be very frustrating and generate little return except for the few.

Stuhar - well articulated idea, and, strangely, rather too close for comfort to something that has been running around in the rear part of my own mind of late.

And this thought is simply that the confusion that surrounds the meaning or definition of the word art is that it is perhaps too wedded to particular expressions of endeavour. In effect, when people speak of art, they seem to be talking about a subject which can be pigeon-holed: painting, music, dance or even sculpture lie within the remit. Photography is rather newer as a medium and so is still having to go through its initiation rituals, even though there is no way it can be refused entry to the pantheon because, like all the other accepted arts, it depends for its validation on display of a visually or aurally pleasing manifestation of whatever it is or professes to be. For photography, as I said, it´s just a matter of time.

But that still avoids any definition of what art might be; my forbidden thought is this: perhaps there IS no definite meaning or semantically precise definition possible because the word itself is nothing more than a blanket description for things that display an ability to tickle the eye, ear or even the nose (try my wife´s cooking!).

So, as for photography being or not being on a particular ´level´ of your own definition, such judgement becomes no more than a personal preference for whichever art pleases you the most.

Neither can I quite get the reasoning behind your allusion to golf and its place in sporting heirarchy; the expenditure of explosive power is nothing but a particular division of athleticism - long distance runners may think differently about any such implied superiority of one type of athleticism over the other! For my part, all these sports, particularly football, should have been left behind with childhood and wind-up toys. Golf has always semed to me to be particularly perverse: why choose the most inappropriate tool with which to achieve the objective: the placing of a ball within a hole? But there you are, there are those who think of it as sport as others imagine horse racing to be the sport of kings. Oh dear me, even sport has to have a pecking order!

Oh, high-mindedness: and why the hell not? Is there merit in mediocrity, then, other than in the crossword sense?

Ciao - Rob C

Rob, of course the hierarchy is my own.

Regarding sport, I think there is beauty and artistry in any movement that is executed with skill, creativity and grace.

High-mindedness in photography is okay until it undermines the fundamental delight in celebrating and sharing the gift of "second sight" that photography bestows. That may be "second sight" in the sense of being able to seize a sight and see it again later. And it may be "second sight" in the way that having a camera, and aspiring to explore the world with it, becomes an on-going process of re-learning how to see.

As for merit in mediocrity, I'm sure not even the best of my photos deserve to be regarded as mediocre - mediocre would be a real achievement for me! Just as my ham-fisted fumbling with Bach is pretty much what you'd expect of a guy of 53 who took up the piano a couple of years ago. But I stand a lot better chance of rising to mediocrity with a camera than I do with a piano - and a lot better chance of producing something that at least a couple of other people may enjoy.

But in both cases, the point for me is to engage with the disciplines and to enjoy the heightened awareness that comes from that process. Not so long ago I commented to my piano teacher. "Let's be honest - who am I kidding? I could wear boxing gloves and it would sound pretty much the same." And despite being an eminent recording and performing harpsichordist, her comment was "you're making good progress, and anyway it's the journey, isn't it?"

Stuhar

The journey! No, for me it darn well isn´t ´ít´! The journey is Photoshop; the journey is running out of seemingly irreplaceable ink for the B9180; the journey is having little or no luck trying to get my hands on their first batch of Hahnemuhle in a land where Epson rules!
For me, where it´s at is the moment of clicking that shutter; the moment when the tranny is on the lightbox or the finished print is in my hands for the very first time.

Modesty regarding one´s own pictures may suit one person but not another. When I was still earning a crust from this business modesty was the kiss of death, the tool of self-destruction, the cancer that allowed the buyer to kick your ass and pay you peanuts!

I have no intention here of applying judgement to another´s oeuvre - particularly when I know nothing about it - but as far as your musical reference goes I have to say this: I can´t sing a note nor can I successfully whistle a tune. I can, however, tell when somebody else goes flat; I can also spend every waking day with music playing and be totally happy with that. I also think that it is my inability to be musical myself that has given me such a desire to surround my life with music and why I think so highly of the gift that some rare people have of just picking up an instrument and playing; of opening their mouths and producing sounds that make the hair on the back of my neck go rigid. With pleasure.

Yet, and yet... the journey, in the Kerouac sense, in the literal Route 66 sense of those two kids with the Stingray, yes, that´s often better than arriving. In years gone past, before I had my heart fright, my wife and I drove from Mallorca to Scotland perhaps eight, nine or more times and I loved that journey through France much, much more than arriving back at the destination which I had escaped years before. I can understand why those young Rolling Stones won´t give up the road. With their health and means, neither would I! It is life; it is affirmation that one really does exist beyond a tiny quotidian pool. Much like the internet, come to think about it.

Ciao - Rob C

Hey Stuhar-

I appreciate your thoughtful post. My feeling is that Artists either declare themselves that or are given the title by others like critics etc. A good approach in my opinion is to make the best pictures you possibly can and let the world decide what to make of them or categorize them.

Also, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of golf. As one who participates in a considerable amount of sports, my experience has been that golf is the hardest one. It takes incredible hand eye coordination and mental focus to be great (and I am not!). Sure, most anyone can get their money's worth and take 150 strokes, but so too can most anyone kick a football around or swing a bat.

The golf analogy is poignant for me personally, because when I play, I'm really competing against myself. Its a struggle to make all the muscles in my body move correctly to strike the ball and make it go where I want. And when I make photographs or paint, I am competing with myself, my doubts, emotions, thoughts, and again its a struggle. If it were not, it would be boring for me.

How's that for philosophical mumbo jumbo!

That's a good analogy, James. I feel pretty much the same way myself, except for the golf part. I have no desire to take up golf in my retirement. The struggle in expressing the original photographic concept with ink on paper, and the incentive to travel to get more photos, is sufficient for me.

Like Rob, I left sport behind when I grew up, yet I think there's a type of ballet going on in rugby and Aussie Rules which could be interesting for the photographer, though I have to admit I'd find a ballet of Swan Lake with all male dancers, with hairy legs, probably more interesting than the ballet of a football match .

Such questions as, "Is photography art?" are perhaps the wrong questions. More pertinent might be, "Can photography be art?" or "Can photography be an art form?"

Is architecture art? Is gardening and growing flowers art? Is writing art? Is dancing art?

Such questions can only be answered in relation to a specific definition of art. Define what art is first, before attempting to answer the question, otherwise it's all waffle.

I'm not going to propose such a definition, but I think there's a distinction to be made between a skill that has practical benefits as it's main purpose and a skill that doesn't. The latter would tend to be considered as art.

For example, writing is a skill. Is writing art? If the answer is, yes, then all the above I've just written is art.

Instrumental music is probably the purest example of an art form because it's totally impractical. It appeals directly to the emotions but essentially has no meaning in the literal sense. It's affects the listeners' emotions in different ways, sometimes radically different ways. There's no standard of meaning, to a B flat 7th chord for example, that has practical benefits in communication. It's art.

Ray

Think again: music has great importance and power in almost any area where it can be heard. Take the movies: it sets mood, builds up tension or calms it down. Above all it has great commercial prospects and generates money, fashion, health and fitness establishments where the flab can be pretended to vanish to the rhythm of whatever they choose to play...

I believe it is an art, whether well practised or not; the difference is only whether the practitioner is an artist. Much like photography, in fact!

Is writing an art? Don´t be modest! Of course it is!

Ciao - Rob C

Rob,
Did you misunderstand my post? I strongly implied music is an art. It is the quintessential art. The art sublime, because it appeals directly to the emotions.

It could be considered to be on a higher level that the art of writing or the so-called graphic arts because it has no other 'raison d'etre'. It's a totally impractical form of communication that has no other purpose than to express the emotions.

Ray

Quite possibly I did misunderstand to a degree; the trouble here is that I start to write something and then it turns out to be coffee time or something of that ilk and I have to conclude or face the justified wrath of she who has to be obeyed...

But seriously, Ray, how can you say that music, or any other art, for that matter, is a totally impractical form of communication? It is ubiquitous, it is communicating all the time whether we realise it or not. I believe that all art appeals to and communicates with the emotions. Whether it soothes you to sleep or gives you an erection, the appeal is to the same human peculiarity: emotion. N´est ce pas?

Ciao - Rob

P.S. Here in my bit of Spain it is presently cloudy, hot and hellishly humid. The perspiration sticks to the T-shirt and one dreads the thought of getting out of the building and into the crowd. I have air-con (which was installed years ago when I thought it an idea to print again - having had several pro darkrooms before, I should have known better! Apart from the discomfort of having to convert my little office into darkroom mode each time, I was forced to use RC paper, which I hated, because of the water shortages which I couldn´t bring myself to make worse) but I seldom if ever switch it on: it makes the outer world even more difficult to handle and is not healthy at all. Idid a shoot in Singapore many years ago and everything there was air-con´d; when I got back to Spain I developed a cough that lasted about six or seven months. Lesson learned.

Moving sideways to the original premise, the cliche can also have great value: ask Messrs Getty and Corbis!

Ciao - Rob C

We can answer that question, Rob, by asking what would happen to society if we banned all impractical activiities such as painting, dancing and music? Could it survive? Yes it could, but obviously it wouldn't be much fun.

But what would happen if we banned all purely practical activities such as building houses, infrastructure, manufacturing and farming. Could we survive? No we couldn't.

I think we have to say that art is icing on the cake.

Ray - I can´t quite grasp how you classify those activities under impractical; however, if your intention is to say that they aren´t totally necessary to human life, then I think you are both right and wrong: on the one hand life might go on, but on the other, it might just atrophy. The more practical aspects of life that you quoted are, indeed, essential too; but I think that ´too´ cannot be overlooked because without the social graces bit I can see civilisation slide irrevocably back into the swamp fom whence, I´m told, it came. I don´t think civilization can go backwards too far and survive.

Caio - lunch calls!

Rob C

Interesting to see that one of our number resides in Spain.

In the early 90s I attended a Spanish language school in Granada during my work vacations for three two week spells. Through a friend of a friend I met a young local woman who, like me, was very much into flamenco. She seriously got into flamenco dance shortly afterwards, moved to Holland and has made a name for herself there as a bailaora.

Anyway, in one of our many conversations we were talking about what makes life worth living, and she said something like, "Yo creo que es esencial vivir con arte" - The English translation would be "I believe it's essential to live with art" but from our conversation I understand her meaning of "arte" to be a blend of art+artistry+creativity+enthusiasm and a touch of the inspiration that the Spanish call "duende".

Gradually that phrase - Vivir Con Arte - has grown in significance for me over the years, both as an explanation for the things where I invest my time, attention (and money) and as an aspiration. I doubt I'll ever be what is generally recognised as an artist, but I have no doubt that I will increasingly get better at Vivir Con Arte in all that I do.

Stuhar

It´s a funny thing, but living in a country other than one´s own seems to be a fairly mixed bag of feelings. There are both highs and lows, as you´d expect, only the extremes seem more so. There is the constant feeling that one either came here too late or too early in life: too late to buy when things were supposed to have been much cheaper - too early to settle into retirement and all the mental baggage that brings.

Also, as a photographer, the reasons for coming were mainly work-related: it seemed cheaper to live here and fly models out for a week or two´s shoot than to float an entire trip from the UK. This proved an illusion: I had to go back to Britain to get Kodachrome processed well (yes, they could, when they felt like it) after each shoot and all the good clients were there too, as was family with whom to flop and edit and design. It worked well for a while because I used to do exchanges with a client in the travel business: flights in exchange for pics.

But nobody knew about that hideous monster lurking in the wings: PC. It destroyed my calendar work within a couple of years of my moving here, scaring clients out of their wits. A new breed of freak roamed Earth, preaching hatred of all that was better than the average, whether in respect of people, figures, education, breeding, the house you lived in or even the car you happened to drive. Dull was the new great and shoddy the new perfection. And the most amazing thing of all: the mothers won - for long enough to ruin most everything.

But, back to the southern European way of living with art: yes, it is a natural part of life here; folk festivals are not mocked and art is everywhere, much of it good and also much of it not - but they are unabashed and keep on trying! For a longish while the new prosperity brough about by tourism didn´t push the people into ostentation - Ford Fiestas were everywhere as were Fiat 127s; today´s younger lot, however, have all the nascent vices of elsewhere: the ego tripping on Mercedes and BMW, the belief that you have to prove who you are, rather than just being comfortable in the knowledge you already have about yourself. Progress, somebody with a sense of irony once said. Perhaps it was only sarcasm.

Ciao , or hasta la vista, if it brings back fonder memories!

Rob C

I don't play golf (or want to, as I think it would appeal to many of the darker aspects of my personality). I do flyfish though, and I have observed many parallels between flyfishing and photography — or at least a great deal of my own photography, which is heavily weighted towards sports, but I think the parallels might apply equally to nature photography.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Rob,
If you broaden the definition of art, then you are right. We could not survive as a civilisation without it. However, we are now back to the problem of defining what we are talking about. The thread began with the suggestion that photography is not a 'proper' art form in the sense that golf is not a true sport.

I merely make the observation that the more highly prized, highly regarded and sometimes the more 'expensive' the work of art, the further it seems to be removed from any practical use for our life in the present.

As a result, photography is perhaps excluded from the exalted realms of the highest forms of art because of its undeniable practical uses in modern society, which tend to dominate. (Just a theory for discussion ).

It's interesting that no-one really knows the purpose of those cave paintings at Lascaux and Altamira. One theory is that some of them may simply be the graffiti of stone-age adolescents. Other theories, that those ancient beings, who lived before the birth of religion, painted purely for the entertainment and joy of it, and in doing so, gave themselves a history and the means of contemplating why we are here, which led on to the creation of myths and religion.

There is at least one tribe of people still living who have managed to survive for ages without any forms of art, myths or religion; the Piraha Indians of the Amazon. Apparently, they lead a very existential type of life without concerns for the past or the future; a true 'living in the present'.

Hi Ray

Yes, I think that we do have to broaded the concept of what is or is not art; in fact Stuhar´s references to Spain really does illuminate just how narrow the northern world´s definition of art might be seen as having become. I don´t think that the north sees it as part of everyday living whereas in the warmer world it most certainly does form a large factor in the total experience of living - from fashion to the graphics of the thing, it´s everywhere you care to look.

Perhaps the Romans do it best, managing to look totally cool about it at the same time!

Nill, you worry me about golf and your darker side: golf is just about putting a ball into a hole, is it not?

Ciao - Rob C

Hi Rob,
I was amazed at the abundance of art just about everywhere in Italy. I'd like to revisit the country with a 1D MK3 and the attributes of Photoshop CS3 in mind.

I've never visited Spain. However, the most celebrated artist that Spain has produced, Pablo Picasso, was of the opinion, after seeing the cave paintings at Altamira, that "after Altamira, all is decadence". You've been on a downward slide for the past 15,000 years in Spain, with regard to art .

The answer is quite simple: they had no cameras!

Ray - Picasso? Come on, you have got to be kidding, no? Dali for the modern lot, but you have to go back a couple of centuries or more to find the cream. This is applicable to the entire world, as far as my own opinion goes - I might make an exception for the Impressionists and their post- members too, but as for today - forget it. All bullshit and money.

Thinking fondly of my youth and photography and Rome: shortly after seeing La Dolce Vita I had occasion to go back to Rome and spend a week with a relative of my mother´s who lived there with his two sons (the mother, with whom I´d fallen in love with at the age of 11 when she must have been about 30 had died in a Fiat...). We were invited to a birthday party at some restaurant in the city and I went along with the Exakta which I had at the time, and a small grey Braun flash which I used to prize. After dinner, and possibly smashed, we went down the Via Veneto in a group with yours truly playing the paparazzo in real time - in the Roman sense of the period - and one of the prettier girls and her boyfriend played along with the game waving their arms at me and yelling no foto, no foto. It was all very amusing at the time and I felt I was actually in a movie. I also spent some time walking up to total strangers (girls, natch) sitting at those cafe tables that bordered the street and snapping away... they loved it, not really to my surprise; you had to be young and alive in the 60s or you might as well have been dead.

God, how I wish I could have those times back again. And the negatives.

Ciao - Rob C

Yes, definitely kidding, Rob .

It sure is a shame you lost those negatives. How did you manage that? I don't believe I've ever lost any negatives (or positives), ever, except the first thousand or so digital negatives I took with my first digital camera, the Canon D60, but that wasn't really a losing but a deliberate dumping to save hard drive space on my laptop, naively believing the 16 bit tif conversions I did with Zoombrowser contained all the information there was and that hanging on to the RAWs served no purpose.

The world has changed a lot since the sixties. Returning to venues years later can be a bit disappointing. I visited Italy a couple of years ago during what I believed to be the off-peak season, winter/spring. It sure didn't seem like off-peak to me.

If that was off-peak, I don't think I'd like to be there during the busy season.

I enjoyed your post. But it seems to me that *any* discussion of the limits of certain photographs threatens people here, and they call that elitist.

I have never criticized anyones image online. I purposedly *never* participate in forums where people post their images. Basically, I figure what in the *blank* is the point of asking absolute strangers for a critique of your images to begin with, unless you are an absolute beginner?

But to go back to the golf analogy. I enjoy watching Tiger Woods play. And I have no problem with duffers who shoot 167 and enjoy themselves. I doubt anyone does.

But I truly hope they understand the difference between their skill level and that of Woods. And I have *no* desire to go out and watch those guys play - maybe their buddies or wives or moms do, but not me. And if they organize a tournament and put themselves on TV, purporting to be better than they are, I think they leave themselves open to criticism - they have entered the "game" at a certain level, where critique comes along with the territory.

I think writing is a better analogy all around. I don't care if you make lists, or write in your diary. I don't really care if you blog about your life, or publish your thoughts on MySpace, though you are putting certain things out in public for comment.

But when a work is published as a book, for example, I don't think it is elitist to call a book garbage, or at least say "I can't read this thing, I am hopelessly bored/confused/indifferent". You always run the risk of being just plan wrong - maybe with something like Kerouac.

But after being a serious reader and writer for 30 years, I think you can rather easily tell something with redeeming value from complete trash - like a Stephen King novel! (joke, joke)

It is like writing a performance review at work, or grading a students paper. You work hard to get it right because you know your judgement is important. Yes, it is somewhat subjective, but the stuff clusters pretty clearly. The "F"'s have a lot more in common with like each other than they do with the "A"'s. And making those judgements is part of the role you take on as a teacher or supervisor.

Michael

Ray

The truth is worse: I didn´t lose them, I destroyed them.

I left the UK in ´81 and had to decide what to do with literally about ten feet (length) of squeezed-together negative files. Some I sold off to old clients and others which meant something to me beyond just work I kept for transfer to Spain. Unfortunately, as most of the work was model related, and we are talking about stuff dating from the 60s and 70s, there weren´t all that many model releases to go with the pics and nobody had ever imagined that there would be an art world out there interested in such material.

One of the shoots, the loss of which which I lament to this day, was with Susan Shaw who did the Smirnoff librarian commercial. It was for an Irish company called Barbour Threads and we shot it in Auchendrain, a preserved old group of buildings in Argyle. It was supposed to look like an old Irish cottage of long ago and the girl wore very revealing peasant blouses, was barefooted etc. etc. and the calendar, in B/W!!! was beautiful. Sadly, the negs for it and the next one for the same company using anothr model call Jaleh, did vanish - I doubt very much that I threw them out. I don´t even have a copy of either calendar. Life sucks, sometimes.

The same holds for many of my colour calendars too. The problem with living in Spain and trying to do/control productions split betwen here and the UK were quite grave. I ended up not getting transparencies back from printers, sometimes because I forgot and even sometimes because they went bust. Even big ones like Kynoch Press. Best to forget all that - this is another time, a very different ballgame.

Ciao - Rob C

hmm, I couldn't disagree more. I dont see how photography can be any less "art" than any other medium. People get hung up probably by the fact that photography 'starts out' with "more" than say a blank canvas with painting, but that doesnt matter, because its all about where you END UP, not where you start. And, you could even argue that its way harder to start with way too much and then have to hone it down, as opposed to starting from nothing, but being allowed to then place only what you want there.

Some people say hip hop is somehow "less" musical. But that just means they dont understand it. When they can figure out the difference between the way someone like Sean "P. Diddy" Combs moronically takes a sample from an original song, as opposed to say how someone like Portishead uses it, then they'll see the "art" in it. Hip Hop/Trip Hop have numerous examples where the re-sampled hook not only sounds better than the original, but where the finished 3-dimensional "usage" of the sample is incorporated into an even better overall song.

Or look at someone like Joseph Cornell -who always took "original" found material and made his little boxes with it. His boxes are some of the most beautiful artworks of all time, and none of it did he technically "make" all by himself. Similarly, in this sense a photographer "takes" what he sees around him, and (hopefully) transforms it just like other great artists, into something better. All artists "borrow" something from somewhere, nothing is truly 100% "original." Those who think a painter is somehow more "original" are kidding themselves, that painter probably "steals" from 10 other painters's styles, and probably learned in the 1st place as an apprentice, as is the tradition.

Lastly, golf is just a bad analogy because it is as elitist and "rare" as a sport can get. How many people play golf, exactly? Photography, on the other hand, is now everywhere, done by everyone, and usually, badly. Its probably more like soccer or basketball, where everyone plays it, but only very few are really, really good at it. Or, maybe it is a good analogy, just that most people are really playing mini-golf, not the PGA version. Perhaps that, in the end, is why some people see it as somehow a lesser art, because "anyone" can do it. Well, if thats the case, then just have the guts to let Uncle Hank shoot your wedding photos....me, I'll just take Cartier-Bresson, thanks.

I've seen mountain bike racers with only one arm and keeping up with the other riders. And Cross country Mountain biking is one hell of a demanding sport.
I also have a photo of my grandad sitting attop the podium of a swimming event. He had one arm missing [got run over by a train when he was little!] and there was no disabled categories in those days. So I'd be less patronising about invalids if I were you.


I say this was philosophy lite.


What utter ignorant nonsense, those lucky few are probably very talented and work very hard at making their 'luck'. Also having done dance, I'd also say the same thing about those who are good at dance and photography. There are those who have natural talent and a large chunk of it comes effortlessly to them and there are those who have to really work at it. But in either case to excel in one's field, you have to put a lot of effort in. Having said that, you don't measure the quality of the end result by the effort put in, you only really measure the end result by the performance in the case of dance or the photograph in photography.


A photographer who creates the entire scene in front of him/herself, say Gregory Crewdson, is also quite different from from the sort of photographer who simply records a bit of the scene presented in front of them as is. Even Crewdson's work must be art even by your spurious reasoning, as so much 'effort' goes into his images. And so much money is then paid for the end results too.
I'd take a guess that it's yourself are describing yourself as 'art lite' and daubing others with your lack of 'art'. It sounds like the typical sort of ropey reasoning by someone who simply doesn't understand what they are talking about.

I saw Mathew Bourne's Adventures in Motion Pictures did Swan Lake about ten years back with a male swans. It was exceptionally good, but I don't recall any hairy legs though as they were still wearing tights!
I believe that it is still touring, so if you get a chance to see it, it's well worth seeing.

This is incredibly stupid and insulting twaddle; an argument that was old, tired, and discredited well before color film photography became popular. If one aspires to go beyond the level of the casual happy snapper, then one must learn the effects of lighting, focus, aperture, depth of field, exposure, focal length, ISO, color management (camera, monitor, and printer profiling, configuring all settings so that all profiles are used correctly, as well as the effects of various rendering intents when doing profile conversions), RAW conversion, noise removal, sharpening, curves, creative color adjustments, B&W conversion techniques, (not to mention many other post-processing steps and Photoshop operation in general) as well as the pros and cons of the various printers, inksets, and paper choices, and how all of those factors affect the final print. All of these things must be mastered to some degree before one can translate one's artistic vision to a print.

Then there is the physical skill required to capture the "decisive moment" in many areas of photography. Capturing a fleeting expression on a child's face, a trotting horse with all four hooves off the ground, a bat making contact with a baseball, or just the right pose as the model walks down the runway all require split-second timing, and a considerable amount of practice to achieve consistently.

And then there is the artistic side, which utilizes the technical knowledge of photography and the physical skill required to operate the camera competently, and uses those tools to take a subject through the process of capture, post-processing, and printing. To expand on Ansel Adams' musical analogy, the selection of a subject can be compared to the composition of musical themes, composition and lighting to arranging those themes into a musical composition, capture to arranging and orchestrating the composition into a musical score, post-processing to performing the score, and printing to recording and mixing the performance into a final finished form. The photographic artist has as many opportunities for the expression of his artistic vision during each step of the process as does the musical artist, and both must develop considerable technical skill to fully realize their artistic intent into a final finished work. If one were to take the position that a photographer is less of an artist than a painter merely because a photograph is based on a concrete subject, then one must also conclude that a classical musician who plays from a printed score is less of an artist than a jazz musician who improvises most of the notes.

I notice that our dedicated sports channels on satellite are increasingly being filled with ballroom dancing, darts and poker competitions. I guess it is therefore only a matter of time before someone takes a photo of the inside of his lens cap, in monochrome of course, and sells it as "art" for a million bucks . . .

You are welcome to your opinions, but I see things somewhat differently. I have been a composer and professor of musical composition and theory, and now am shooting for "fine art" prints for exhibit and sale. I would like to make several personal observations:

1) The ease of producing a work should have nothing to do with its artistic value. Beethoven labored over each measure, reworking the score so much that he actually had to paste new paper over some measures. Handel knocked out the Messiah in about 13 days. Marcel Du Champ's "Fountain" is a urinal placed upside down, and was just as complete as a scene captured with a camera. It is part of a genre of "Found Art," which has a modern equivalent in "Appropriated Art," where, for example, Richard Prince has made huge blowups of preexisting photographs by other photographers. You can agree or disagree as to whether this is art, art lite or nonsense, but there are many serious artists, grounded in the history of art, who produce such art. There are also people who view such art as serious art, whether or not you see the term "serious" as "hauteur" and "high-mindedness."

2) I have made photographs since I was a child, and my goals have always been the same with photography as with musical composition: to interpret what I observe, to create a situation in which I can share it and communicate to others, and to move others, not necessarily in the same way I was moved in producing the work (music or print), but to evoke a response.

3) Some photographic artists (Adams, Weston, etc.,) started with an existing scene but spent hours in a darkroom, transforming the scene into what was their vision. Today, with Photoshop, the same possibilities for creative self expression exist.

4) When I was teaching music, many of my colleagues dismissed jazz as music of "unschooled" musicians, with little or no artistic value. Today, jazz is recognized as an art form, with complexity and nuance that many symphonically trained musicians are totally incapable of performing.

5) All of the skills of photography, when learned, can produce adequate prints, but with a vision, often based on a lifetime of aesthetic observation and consideration, a photographer can produce a moving statement In fact, some photographers enjoy the challenge of using a $20 Holga with light-leaks and plastic lens to produce an artistic statement.

6) Is a poem written in a few minutes by a sensitive poet to be considered a lesser example of art than a poem that took anguishing hours of work to tailor? I would think not, but again, you are welcome to your opinions.

7) A large number of painters, sculptors and other visual artists have made photographs, not merely to record their art, but as an artistic challenge to them, and they consider their photographs on the same level as their paintings or sculpture.

Some 40 years ago I attended a concert of avant guarde music. I was a composer of Electronic Music at the time, but my challenge was to utilize form to structure the music. This concert presented new work by many composers, in which form was incidental, or by chance, or so variable that no two performances of a given piece would be, or could be, similar. I left the concert enraged, feeling that these composers had some interesting effects but were short-changing the audience and giving modern music "a bad name." Ten years later, in front of a class of would-be musicians and composers, I realized that I was using a recording of one of those pieces and that it had become one of my favorites.

At that point I became much more humble, realizing I had not been able to open myself up to the music of that concert. I soon adopted the stance that if there are serious people presenting their work, I may like it, dislike it, "get" it or not, agree with it or not, but not to judge it as "more than" or "lesser than" in terms of art.

Sorry for being so long-winded.

Thank you, Walter.sk. That needed to be said.

I don't think what is "art" as all that complicated.

Art is any endeavor that uses the creative juices to accomplish. In short we must create something that wasn't there before.

The question becomes more complicated when we have to judge what is "good art" vs "bad art". And to be designated as one or the other usually but not always depends on the "artists" dedication to the craft of his particular field.

When a child does finger painting, that is art, because the child is using her creative instincts to create it. As she progresses and perhaps trains, the product will undoubtedly change and evolve but it doesn't diminish the creativity that was put into her original work.

For photographers, the differences between "snap shooters" and serious photographers, is that snap shooters generally arent interested in creating something but are merely capturing something. Serious photographers are thinking and composing and studying their subject matter to attain a certain result. How well they accomplish that task, is again, the subject of whether is to "good" or "bad".


Michael

But even this doesn't hold up under scrutiny of what has happened in photography as art. As each style becomes reified into a set of rules for acceptance, some artists feel stultified, and seek to break through to a fresh territory of expression. An example that occurred in painting as well as photography, not necessarily at the same historic periods, was the rebellion against "Salon" art, which began to be perceived as inordinate concern for form and composition through placement of the objects, and ultimately a cleverness that strangled expressive attempts. The artists who felt that way took many different paths, some more controversial than others. In photography, it resulted in a return to the "snapshot" in an attempt to get past the use of artistic principles that became formulaic.

There are many collections of work out there in galleries and photobook form that renounced the Salon type of art in exchange for what the photographers felt was a more authentic expression of an idea or a socially relevant issue without being hampered by the "prettiness" of form-oriented work.

A viewer looking through such a collection of gas stations may wonder "where is the art...these are just snapshots," but the artist may have some other message to convey.

Me? I don't claim to like, or understand all of the types of art out there. I have photographs that do very well in a Salon setting, and I also have ones that raise the question of "Is that photography?" I have also written music based on 18th century forms, as well as experimental electronic music and musique concrete. I'll listen to anything once, and go to galleries and museums to see what fellow photographers around the world are doing...just to see it. Very often, a work I don't particularly like triggers an idea for shooting that pops into my head months later.

I just think it's great to be alive and surrounded by so many different approaches to art today.

But Walter, perhaps the initial photography of the gas stations was merely snapshots but what captures your interest today, is their compilation into a work of art. Namely the compilation or book. That is where the creative expression was exerted.

That being said if the anti salon people went out to do "snapshots" then those snap shots were meaningfully and deliberately done which fall into my definition of art. As opposed to Uncle Harry snapping pictures at a party.

Part of the human experience is to be drawn to what other people creatively do or perhaps more so to what they "did". What was a boring snapshot the day it was taken, could be endlessly fascinating to a viewer 30 years later. Though it may or may not be "art" unless as I mentioned above, deliberately compiled by someone.


Michael

Quite probably the art/photo question will be bandied about for ever, and with no final answer. To those, including the OP, who question photography as art I say this - it's the person, not the medium, that determines whether a work is 'art'.

Painting is not art just because someone has bunged some finger paints on some paper, neither is writing just because someone has scribbled 5 lines that rhyme.

No medium has an a priori claim on being called art until someone actually makes it so.

There are never going to be definitive answers to the photography as art question, only personal opinions.

But there are always going to be more questions than answers, and one I´d like to pose here is this: if a child does a drawing, painting, doodle or whatever else it likes to do when asked to make a picture, can one claim that the child is creating art because the action is untutored, genuine and from within that child´s personal gamut of experience rather than being a mere distillation of other, observed forms of second-hand visual expression? For what it´s worth, I think it is art. However, when that child grows up and fails to develop its skills further, then the child is no longer an artist but merely just another person who has lost contact with his original possibilities.

Rob C

I obviously agree as this is what I stated earlier.

My problem comes down to the term"artist". With my definition of art, then everyone is, or capable of, being an artist. Whether at any particular moment they are actually creating art is a different story.

It's much like "lover". Everybody can be one but we hardly go about calling ourselves that all day long.

If a person is in the process of creating art, then they are an artist. When they stop for dinner, they stop being an artist and begin to be an "eater?" Not sure on that one.

In my opinion the term "artist" has become a bit overdone. Much like the word arTIST.


Michael

Sorry, Michael, I have to admit not reading all of the thread again - didn´t mean to rip off your thunder!

But to your later point: I think that the original child artist who loses the ability later on is, without question, no longer an artist; much the same could be laid at the doorstep of your ´lover´ who, as he/she ages (we have to be damn careful here!), or hits beta-blockers and other such mines, may well lose the right to the title lover.

Semantic niceties aside, I think that the true artist, in the sense that he can create valid art works, does not always produce art. I have had a similar wordy exchange with a friend who has a successful website, an art degree and prizes from a variety of artistic backers, not to mention a lot of gallery showings, and who is quite clear that being an artist does not mean that he always produces that which, to him, passes as art; sometimes he sees some of his works as no more than competent pictures.

How does one resolve that? Is it possible to resolve?

Ciao - Rob C

This is more of a general comment, and definitely not having a go at anyone who has posted, but everytime I read something with 'art' in the title on a photography site, the overall tone always seems to be quite defensive. I suspect we photographers still have a chip on our collective shoulders and don't quite see ourselves as paid up members of the visual arts community.

At the end of the day do you really care about the label? I don't.

There are things still photography does better than any other medium - a long term documentry project, a story in a series of images, a single decisive moment of history or an iconic image. Thats enough to be going on with isn't it?

Neil it is certainly enough to be going on with, but it is also part and parcel of the mental journey upon which photographers seem to embark.

Self-questioning is only to be expected and I have to admit to asking the very same is-it-is-it-not-art questions within a professional photographic context way back in the late 60s, so this is a far from new experience, regardless of whether or not photographs sit within galleries; in those years, very few did and more´s the pity, leading to some long-lost negatives which would now be very valuable in terms of historical interest in fashions, places and yes, just as art for its own sake.

I am not going to be the falsely modest babe on this forum - I have lost quite a lot of my own stuff for this very lack of foresight and self-appreciation. Way back when, it was imagined that only US photography - dustbowl deprivation, Times Square junkies, kids admiring knives in shop windows etc. was some sort of new-look artistic expression; the later European pictures (later not historically but in the collector´s sense of being good buys) were not really that publicly on display, or at least, if they were I do not remember them very clearly despite being an avid buyer and reader of photographic magazines. Books were a little beyond my wallet, much of the time.

So yes, art within photography is a valid question and of concern to most of us, I suspect, who think we are a bit good at it.

Rob C

I agree with you, in part. But the exceptions such as Ansel Adams or Edward Weston for instance, are so wonderful. And I agree with you in another way too. I'm not about to play pro football, or for that matter be a runner and mess up my knees.

Photography is accesable enough art for me and I enjoy the past time, especially sharing wonderful images and the emotions that follow with others.

Try doing an 8 hour or longer wedding shoot while trying to think artistically the whole day and also dealing with the technical, logistical and whatever other side of it you can keep track of. Someone sitting on their butt playing with clay or sketching on a piece of paper doesn't even begin to compare. I've trained more for this then a lot of athletes train. About two years so far of constant learning. So, yes, it's an art, and a lot higher art then you think if one truly aspires for it. Doing "real" art tends to bore me pretty quickly. That's why I stopped drawing years ago.

Interesting you should mention that. Usually when I happen to observe someone using a P&S camera, they point the camera at the subject and seem to wait an inordinate amount of time before pressing the shutter. They seem to be examining the image on the LCD screen with great intensity for ages and ages. What are they waiting for? The right facial expression? Making sure they've got the composition right and haven't chopped off anyone's right ear? Perhaps they're just waiting for someone to yell at them, "Take the bloody photo now."

Perhaps they're really just attempting to be artistic. However, if they're waiting for some momentary change in the scene that might make it more interesting, they'll probably fail to capture it due to the excessive shutter lag of most P&S cameras.

I'm not saying that golf is not a sport, but I am saying that it is a much less demanding sport than other sports - after all, it's a sport that can be played by semi-invalids if they have enough money for a golf cart.


[/quote]


Well l am stuffed as I am a professional photographer who has specialised in photographing professional golf tournaments since 1993 - www.golfpicturebank.com

Having been a keen goalkeeper (real sport as football) and someone who also played professional golf (my first occupation) two rounds of golf over a very undulating course, with some holes nicknamed thrombosis hill, when you have to carry your own pro sized and packed bag, is not just a gentle stroll.

I would suggest that golf is more demanding than being a goal keeper (team sport) who just trots back and forth his goal, occasionally makes a save, or is only able to put his hands on his hips to emphasis the dejected look, after the ball has gone between his legs and hit the back of his net.

A top golfer will weight train and run to be at the peek of his game - Tiger Woods shook up many of the lazy, overweight, golfers who were making a comfortable living by not winning any trophies. Gary player used to do 1000 sit ups a day, many with a 70lb weight on his chest, one arm finger-tip press ups with weights on his back, a good example of a dedicated sportsman.

I have some sympathy with your statement that golf is not a sport in the true sense as I would hate to see golf become an Olympic sport - sadly it appears to be heading for Olympic status. There are enough leisure activities that have been granted Olympic status and shouldn't have been.

Having carried out many photo shoots in the US I note that many US courses only use carts in order to take more green-fees - this certainly defeats using golf as a form of exercise. In Europe, in the main, golfers are encouraged to walk at least 4.5 miles per round, probably 5.5 miles for hackers! Fortunately I gave up golf 20 years ago as a good walk spoilt.

I have certainly never been precious to class photography, let alone sports photography, as an art form.

While I don't agree with the assessment of photography as "art lite", I can see the similarity between golf and photography in another way: Both are activities that a lot of people do at an amateur level, whereas many other sports/arts are more the area of highly trained people. Thus both get the labelling of "anyone can do it". In fact, most people can pick up a golf club or a camera and fairly quickly get to the level of "not awful" - try that in glassblowing or boxing or ski jump or opera! The often overlooked fact (that I'm becoming more and more painfully aware of:) is that the distance between bad and good in both golf and photography is much smaller than the distance between good and great. It's just Sturgeon's law applied: 90 % of everything is crap.

-Lars

That Sturgeon sure knew what he was talking about! Pity so many have to prove it online.

Rob C

I'm not saying that golf is not a sport, but I am saying that it is a much less demanding sport than other sports - after all, it's a sport that can be played by semi-invalids if they have enough money for a golf cart.


Lars,

The above quote is not mine - it was part of Stuarte's quote from his original post.

Regards,

Nick Walker



www.golfpicturebank.com

I was discussing golf and sport recently with a former PT instructor in the Army, a guy who boxed, did biathlon, canoing, football and a bunch of other sports, some to a very high level. He also plays golf and remarked that of all the sports he has played, golf is the greatest revealer of someone's true character.

Regarding the sportiness or otherwise of golf, it was a bit of a non-issue for him. To play it really well requires skill, patience, stamina and a good eye. Not to mention a lot of dedication and practice.

Here's my cliched contribution:

99% of 'modern' or 'contemporary' art is pure BS.

To this I must add:

99% of the art world makes me want to vomit.