Hey there! I just released Episode 8 of my Frame of Mind Photography Podcast.
Episode 8 Topic – Is Photography an Art or Not?
In Episode 8, Blake Rudis joined me once again. This week, we chat about something Blake and I have been arguing about for years. Is photography considered an art or not?
How to Listen/Watch
You can listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Google. Or you can watch it below.
The podcast is NOT intended to be visual in any way, so all you’re doing is watching the two of us talk and nothing else. But if that’s the way you prefer it, feel free. Personally, podcasts are something I listen to when I have nothing else to do, or to keep me busy while doing something else – so I never watch them.
Apple Podcast Link (Click Here)
Spotify Podcast Link (Click Here)
Google Podcasts Link (Click Here)
PRO TIP: I typically listen to podcasts on my phone while driving or in the gym. And I usually set most podcasts to 1.25x – 1.5x speed to get through it faster.
Since this IS NOT A TRAINING tutorial, and it’s just us talking, I think you can speed us up and get through it faster so feel free to give it a try. I can’t help you find that setting, but again… most podcast apps have it so poke around. If you can use Lightroom and Photoshop I have no doubt you can figure out how to use a podcast app ?
I love teaching and photography... In that order. I feel that enjoying photography, and photo editing can get WAY too complicated. So my personal mission (and favorite thing to do), is to create education that simplifies the process of taking great photos, and how to edit them to get the results you’ve always wanted.
Yep. I am on the Blake Train as well.
For some people a camera is just like a wrench from the toolbox but for others it can be a Double O sable paintbrush capable of fine discernment. An Artist knows which tool to reach for and if that can’t quite achieve the results they look for then they can adjust how it is used to ‘create’ something special.
Matt, I understand your reticence. Just a walk around a gallery will reveal artists that get their message across, and those that need a small treatise hung alongside to explain what they want you to feel. That makes me cringe as well.
Not sure I follow the logic. Don’t masters of photography also know which tool to reach for to create a compelling image? Why does it have to be that the artist knows what tool to reach for? Sorry Max… gotta say that of all the arguments, knowing what tool to reach for, holds the least.
First of your podcasts I’ve listened to! Great work by both of you and very thought provoking.
Some of my thoughts: First, I’m very definitely NOT an expert photographer. I was drawn to photography because, for my whole life, I have found the world around me to be enthralling. It’s not just what I see, but how I am connected to what I see and how that connection elevates life in general an my life specifically. When I take any photo…even the ones that I get “right,” the photo NEVER fully portrays that whole concept. Editing my photos is my attempt to expose and share the wonder I see and feel. I’m rarely successful, but excited to keep trying.
Sorry Matt- your initial assessment is flawed as many painters or sketchers or watercolorists are ‘merely’ recreating what something or someone else has made. Only it’s how they see it. The photographer also shows you how they see it. I know this because after spending 3.5 months hitchhiking all over Europe and taking photos right next to someone else when we processed them we had very little in common as to what we saw or how we saw it. Yes you ‘can’ take the same or similar photo, so can a painter paint the same scene. It will not necessarily have any feeling.
It’s not whether or not photography is an art- there are better photographers (like there are better artists) than others.
Monet- with cataracts- still painted as he saw it. ‘It” was not his origination.
At the end of the day, it’s ALL art- some of it is just BAD ART and I think that is your block, Matt.
My problem is people hide behind it. When the quality of the work comes in to question, the idea that it’s “art and anything goes” is what they get behind. Art to me is something special. Typically it’s something I can’t even put words to. I have yet to see a photo that gets me to that point.
I have yet to see a photo of Mesa Arch or Snake River that is special. Yet everyone calls it art. At least with most painters, what they create requires skill. We can give the brush to two people and they’ll be different – and if they’re not skilled at painting, it won’t be good. Not so with the camera. As I said, I could hand my camera to a 3 year old and tell them to point and shoot in one direction and they’ll get a world class photo. Without the context of that situation, many people would look at that photo and call it art. Sorry – what you said just doesn’t fly with me – but that’s okay. It doesn’t have to. It only has to make sense to you, and we can disagree. As you can see from the rest of the comments, it’s probably not something I’m going to change my mind on 🙂 Thanks
Great conversation guys.
The reality is that photography is both an art and a craft just as painting both art and craft. I had the honor of attending classes with Ansel Adams in the late 1950s. In my first class he said that only half of a picture is at the camera, the other half is in the darkroom. He coined the phrase pre-visualization.
Most of the early painters created their own brushes and mixed their own paint. pre-visualization is what all artists do in their heads before they prepare the canvas, which is craft.
When I watched you create highlights on a beach and reflections on a wall that was otherwise dead of luminance, it was art. Sorry Matt, you are an artist.
The camera sensor is flat like a canvas. Art comes from visualizing what you want to see in your brain then positioning the camera to reflect what you want to see when you post process. That is art.
You are right Matt, pointing your $7,000 Sony at the sky to take the flock of eagles in itself is not art. Knowing how to use the camera and the skill to get several hundred images of the flight is craft. But, finding the image and post processing it to evoke emotion is art.
Matt, the “Frame of Mind” series is the best you have ever done. Thank you, Jim
Thanks Jim. Regarding the highlights on the beach edit I did… you say “art”. I say I’m good at what I do. But it seems that art is becoming synonymous with being really good at something. Think about it… what’s the highest form of any compliment anymore? “That person is an artist, they’re so good”. Personally I’d take “expert” as a better compliment, because I have simply not developed a good connection/opinion of most people who call themselves “artists” that I’ve seen or met over the years. 🙂
Blake has my vote on this topic. Vision is the key. Learn the craft and apply your view, your feelings.
I 100% agree… Vision is key. Feeling is key… Creativity is key. None of those things makes taking a photo of a mountain or bird art in my book. They are all just requirements for a great photo 🙂
“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.” Ansel Adams
If all art meant was for a photographer to call what they do art, we wouldn’t have had the conversation in the first place 🙂
I’m a big fan, Matt. BUT, man that was a boring show, didn’t learn a thing.
PS- criticizing Bob Dylan’s voice is like criticizing William Shakespeare’s acting skill.
You are forgiven, but I had to get it off my chest. 🙂
Sorry. I’ll refund your money 😉
The next time I visit Mesa Arch, I’ll watch out for dog poop.
Ha!! You know how those dogs running around w go pros can be!
Very good discussion, especially at the 30-minute-ish mark. I think Matt is also an artist because I have seen him make decisions on cropping, and removing distracting items rather than just leaving it. You are making a conscious decision or have a vision of how to present the photo. If one has a vision of the scene and “work” the composition to achieve that vision, that to me is an artist. If you just walk up to a scene and take a photo that is technically correct and visually appealing, that can be a craft. This is fine because their artist’s expression may come out in the post-process and that is where they become the artist.
I also believe art is subjective. Most people would have a hard time calling a banana taped to the wall art. But as crazy as it is, in my opinion, I can’t deny it is not art (unless they were purposely trying to just create something for fun rather than a thoughtful vision). When people over-saturate their photos on purpose, I may not like it but it is their vision.
And their vision is wrong and will produce substandard images that won’t resonate with people. Most important, won’t give the person a feeling of accomplishment. Just because some one has a vision doesn’t make it right or art. It makes is some one who is simply not good at their craft. Saying all we need is a vision and to work the scene to make it art takes away from the hard work it takes to excel at photography. Bad photos exist and regardless of what you wanted to do and hoped to do, it can still be a bad photo.
I can see you point Matt on defining Art other then lets say you take a motion blur photo for artisitic purposes its no longer just copying it right? just a thought. I enjoy your POD cast. Also im still going thru your composition course I bought. Excellant. When I’m done I will probably buy your course on Birds
However, this has been one of the best and enjoyable debate I have ever enjoyed!
Question to ponder: Can you have art without craftmanship? I would propose this along the lines Blake was saying – Picaso had a craft with brushes, color combination, etc. but the artistry comes when the craft is a second nature and they can make art. A photographer making what could be considered art must have the craft of taking pictures down and without the craftmanship of taking pictures they won’t make art. I am reminded of things said in movies… things like “That Zoro is an artist with the sword”. Artist is an elevation from craftsman IMO. Thanks for the show, guys, and I’m glad you’re good friends!
As we said toward the end, it seems art is being replaced as the term expert. That chef is an artist… not that chef is an expert. Personally I’d rather be called the highest form of expert as something, rather than artist. But that’s me personally. Judging by the overuse of the term (to me at least), experts would rather be called artists.
One of the most well known photographer (who actually inspired me to go into photography) is Art Wolfe. He has also produced courses in “Fine Art Photography’! He has turned photography into art imho. Just saying… Sorry Matt, I’m siding with Blake on this one!
Hi Scott. No need to be sorry. It’s a free country. Art Wolfe, is a wonderful photographer. He can call his work “art” – or whatever he wants. You can call his work art – or whatever you want. I’m not going to call a photo of some flowers in front of a lake/mountain, or an eagle in the air, art. Exceptional photography… most definitely!!! Art… nope 🙂
PS: Art Wolfe in many interviews talks about valuing composition during capture and shooting in good light as the most important thing (he doesn’t edit much). While you said you agree with Blake, that is in direct contrast to why he said landscape photography is art.
The best podcast so far in my opinion. Lots of good points made on both sides. I look at lot of photos that are for lack of a better term “eye candy”. As I invest more time in photography I have found some photos that are at a higher level of magnitude, AKA art. 🙂
Thanks for the interesting conversation about art vs. craft. I am a nature photographer in TN and have thought about it too. My conclusion is that some photos are craft and some are art and that’s based on my definition of art (which I stole): Art is putting form to feeling. This works for photography, painting, sculpture, dance, etc. (sorry Blake, not fixing Jeeps). The best way I can explain this is to imagine placing Jay Maisel and me in the same city, same block, even the same site. My photo will be technically correct and craft. Jay’s will be art because it has feeling.
Maybe there is another aspect about it, you did not mention, and I thought about it when re-listening to the podcast.
You were speaking about a wedding and the people who served the food, cleaned the tables, did the wedding photos. All these persons were rather craftsmen I believe, because they had a contract to fullfill and stick to some rules written or expected. They were hired, payed, but not absolutely free in thier desicions what or how to deliver.
An artist on the other side could be the person, absoultely free to create what they want, what they love, for themselves – and then hope, someone would love it too and buy the creation.
On the risk of starving, when the art created was too uncommon, excentric, experimental.
Maybe it is also the freedom of creation that defines art. ( no matter if you like the art or not)
Would love to hear what you think.
Good podcast! I think that photography does have so many genres and that Fine Art is one of them. I listen to Brooks Jensen who publishes LensWork magazine and his whole focus (pun intended) is Fine Art Photography. He goes back to the 4×5 view camera and processing the film in the darkroom with the intent of hanging the photos in a gallery.
In my opinion, Henry Cartier-Bresson’s contribution to photography is the “decisive moment.” I agree it could be debatable if that is art. I am sure if he was around now, his photographs would not be blurry with higher ISOs/shutter speeds.
I also think you might be able to get your eagle shot in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum if you enter the Nature’s Best Photography Competition and it was selected. (https://www.naturesbestphotography.org/)
So, none of the 4.7 billion photos are taken every day worldwide in total, according to Phototurial data, are artistic?
Question to Matt: You have a course that is called „The ART of editing landscapes“
So is editing landscapes then an art form? 😀 ( kidding)
I love your discussion about art and craft, and in a certain way I agree with Matts reservations towards the term art in conjunction with photography.
The Old Masters were artists without any doubt – who could hold a candle to them.
One might still call a descending black line over the span of three huge canvases art – when the artist is Joan Miro.
We discussed the term artist up and down in Blakes f64Elite – art is a kinda different space, too distant, especially for a hobby photographer, like a sphere you can‘t even touch.
Replacing the word artist by the word creative makes it more tangible and here has Blake a huge point – no matter if artist or creative: considering myself to be artist or creative – just this thought was so liberating and freeing. No concerns anymore, what was „right“ in my editing, no concerns anymore, what „would others say“ .
Almost no rules anymore. I had to find out for myself what I wanted, what direction to go and for a year or so I believe I created a lot of horrible images, lol.
It was the beginning of being creative no the less, I just needed to jump off the technical fence.
So is photography a creative art form? For me a clear yes.
Hi Heike! Hope you’re doing well.
1. The Landscape course was named that because I knew it would sell – not because I think any part of taking or editing a landscape photo is art. I did a survey before that course and everyone said they wanted “Fine Art” techniques (which means a whole lot of nothing btw…). So I added the word Fine Art in it A LOT, and named it the Art of Editing Landscapes. It was purely a marketing move, and nothing to do with how I felt about it 🙂 There’s no way you can tell me you’re an artist because you wiggle around a few sliders and brushes in Photoshop. Some one like Josh Snow, comes closer than anyone I know, but it’s mostly because of his masterful composition, which I believe to be 90% of the success of a landscape photo. With as good as color and tone come from the camera these days, editing does not make you an artist.
2. RE: Old Masters. To me, no old photos move me in any way. I’m one of those blasphemous people that feel most of the old “artist” photographers wouldn’t make it today and virtually none of the old photos I see do anything for me. (remember though, I’m dead inside… LOL!).
I hope you’re doing well!
Josh Snows work is breathtaking, and if you ever have watched one of his time lapse recordings of how he edits – Alien World for example – you see that he doesn‘t stop at some slider wiggling. 🙂 He replaces skies, pushes and warps rocks around, paints light…He transforms what nature and light have given into a whole new experience, and all that goes way beyond depicting what was in front of his lens. I do call that art.
I agree on the other side – sometimes a photo is just a photo. There is a wide span hat goes from just a photo to compositing to collage style to abstract …
I‘m doing well, thank you, Matt, and I‘m grateful for this on1 time with you as photo coach. I started with no idea of post processing at all, and you go me up and running within less than a year 🙂 Don‘t tell anyone you are dead inside 🙂 – you teach with fire and excitement and you love what you do. And what you teach in your texture course – I would call that artistic 🙂
Thanks! I pride myself on my creativity. I may not call it art, but I love to be creative and will always attribute my creativity to my success 🙂
Wow Matt! You need to hang out with fewer pretentious snob artists and find more of us who have parked the ego on the shelf, always seeking to learn, improve and create and would never look down on anyone!! 🙂
It’s amazing to me that I learn so much from both you and Blake given your different approaches, but perhaps building from both of you creates a super craftsman-creative-artist!!! (not that I would claim to be one!)
At the end of the day, no matter what we call it, has the photographer produced a photograph that (first) they like and (second) others appreciate. I come away from this discussion not wanting to call my photography either art or craft – They are loaded terms obviously. To me, it’s just photography…..
Thanks! I’m with you. All I care about is…
1. Do I like it and am I proud of it
2. Does it make others say “wow”
As for hanging out w less pretentious artists I’m not sure that exists 😉
A craftsman can turn his work into art. Since this is subjective I would ask myself – how much has this photo been manipulated so that it is art.
So you’re saying that the process of photography isn’t art… it’s only once you’ve manipulated the photo after the capture process, that it becomes art? I guess a lot of people who think photography is art, would argue with you, because your definition means it can only be art once it’s post processed on the computer? Or that photography is only art if the photo was manipulated? (ie. Henry Cartier-Bresson photos wouldn’t be considered art even though nearly every photography art history class would teach that it was).
I lean more toward Blake’s point of view but you both agree that creativity is the element that defines art. It seems Matt might have dealt with people with inflated egos who gloated about their work.
However, as a die-hard Dylan fan I would say to Blake that it is not his voice that made him famous it was his command of poetry. Personally, I think his voice and music matched the color-graded feeling in his words.?
My takeaway: Blake feels, Matt doesn’t.
Pretty accurate.
What a superb production. Matt may have represented a position I’ve taken for some while, but Blake has convinced me: we use our craft to create art. Parenthetically, I’d dearly love to know about the “25 years” Matt spent with people who put him off the idea of thinking himself an artist; equally, I suspect Blake’s art education informs his approach. In film days (much influenced by Ansel Adams) I used to think it was 30% finding it in the field (I’m a landscape guy), 30% getting on the negative, 30% turning the negative into a final print, and 10% for luck. In digital you still have to find it in the field; before pressing the shutter you have to compose and arrange line, shape and texure; tone and hue (all Freeman Patterson concepts) will emerge in post-processing. I’m just not so sure of percentages any more.
The one thing I’d change in your % numbers is that WAY more than 10% is luck. I would say if you truly want a great landscape or wildlife photo, more like 45% is luck and the other 45% is work/creativity… with 10% being what you do after the photo is taken.
Matt, you may possibly be right. Thank you and best wishes!
Great podcast, and I think you came to a great conclusion. I’ve got a friend that was an artist, but had issues with technique. As this person became a better technician, their art increased as well. The two go hand in hand, even if “artist” can lead to inflated egos. =)
Thanks for the podcast.
Bottom line guys is that you’re both right. We use our craft to create an artistic interpretation of what we see. This probably applies more to landscape and macro work than wildlife and wedding although I’m sure there are exceptions in the latter. And, yes, there are pictures that are just “bad” and we’ve all taken a bunch of those. Matt, you’ve been with Tom Bol and me doing critiques and we’ve seen a lot of “bad” images. Doing group critiques should be eliminated ?. I had one on one critiques way back and my teacher would not hesitate to call an image of mine “crap”. That’s not art! Enjoyed the give and take. Love you guys both
For me they two terms are intwined; the skill (craft) is knowing what to shoot at, knowing how to use your gear, the artist part comes in understanding the post processing and taking to the point that it can be hung on a wall and displayed as art.
I consider myself as skilled more than artist because I struggle with the post processing part of creating the final product. I can look at a scene or animal and know how to shoot it to get the image that I want but the post work where the artist’s vision comes into play and that is where I have my struggles. I do not have what I consider an artistic brain, I am very technical orientated so seeing the art part is hard for me. I do get there but it takes time and getting my daughter (artistic type) to proof what I have done to the image in post. She sees color, tone, lights and shadows a lot easier than I do, I see the composition and gear settings easier than she does, it makes us good partners when we are working on our hobby.
Talent plays a huge part in both terms in being able to understand the technical aspects of the gear and then being able to see how to post process, and how you want to present the final product. If the final is good enough to hang on a wall it is art in my mind.
I’m getting new R5 camera tomorrow so have been hanging out in facebook groups to learn in advance. The vast majority of posts (99%+) are technical craft stuff. ISO, shutter speed, fstops, lens sharpness, AF techniques etc. The emphasis seems to be on taking technically perfect photos. Almost no discussion of composition, telling a story with the lens, capturing the emotions, moving people with the photos. I’m with Blake on this one I think. I have learned a lot of Matt, but I want to do more than capture a technically accurate documentary photo. That doesn’t mean I’m always successful, but that is the aspiration
Hey Dale. You’ve got me curious on this one.
Blake said that the camera is only 10% of what he does. He also mentioned that when he is taking photos, he’s only a “data collector”. That the “art” was in his Photoshop work after he takes the photo. I teach in my Inside the Composition course that composition is everything. That photography has little to do with what we see, and more with how we see it.
With my wildlife photography, I teach a group of setting that let you “set it and forget it” in your camera, so you can focus on the creative aspect of watching, waiting, and capturing unique photos and moments (again, I believe those things can’t be created on the computer).
Edit the photo using tools that make the photo look like what you wanted or envisioned right? You own my “No Light” courses, my “LR Masking” course and, at least to me, when I think about what I taught in those, they are more creative in nature, than anyone I’ve ever seen teach this stuff. Anyway, your comment made me curious because I feel the opposite – like a broken record in my teaching, telling people to be more creative – and I’m always admitting I’m the least technical person I know in photography… and I like it that way. ? Thanks!
What struck me most about your dialogue was the great respect each of you demonstrates for the other person who sees a matter that is important to you quite differently. For me it was pure artistry to see each of you approach contrasting opinions with respect and reason. Know that I value and respect your work. Both of you have taught me much about creating inspirational photographs and I continue to learn from you. I consider both of you masters of your craft and art.
Love these podcasts. And, both of you in this one discussing ‘is it art or craft’ was the best so far. I think photography, and I include image manipulation in that, is actually a bipolar spectrum that spreads between craft and art. Everyone, will be somewhere on that spectrum.
Watching some of the really great technical crafting that I’ve seen done by you Matt on images to the amazing artistic ability demonstrated in the Fall Colours Video that I have just watched you do Blake, proves that both sides are right.
Just keep up the fabulous work and progression across the spectrum – and please keep these great podcasts coming!
This conversation brings me back to a discussion I’ve had in the past about whether photographers use their left brain or right brain in creating their images. Personally, I feel that I am a little more left brain dominant than right brain. The left brain is more of the technical and the right brain is more of the creative. I have met many photographers that struggle with the technical side for many years yet, create beautiful images. On the other hand, there are those photographers that understand the technical aspects of exposure, lighting and composition, yet do not have the creativity to create “art.”
A craftsman has the technical skills to recreate a design with great results (lots of left brain). An artist creates a design, as Matt said, from nothing (right brain.) Then there are those that excel on both sides of their brain. Is a still life photographer not creating something from nothing? They are not recording the location or moment. They are creating from nothing and yet, they are photographers.
I agree that Matt’s point that just because it’s “art”, anything goes as an excuse for a bad attempts is bogus. But, someone without skills can use that as an excuse and in those cases, it is not art. When I was a wedding photographer (decades ago), there was no way that I would consider myself an artist. I was trained on how to pose, which images I needed and how to communicate with the clients. I was at best, a craftsman. However, there are photographers that treat every situation differently, and “create” new images from nothing. They are artists.
Is Brooke Shaden a photographer? I don’t think that there is anyone that would argue that she is not artist. (https://brookeshaden.com/gallery/)
So, my take on this is that some photographers are artists, some are craftsmen and craftswomen. Both can create valuable images that evoke emotion in the viewer. There are also photographers (as well as in other media) that are still learning their crafts and might be aspiring artists.
For me, art is knowing when to stop. If I paint one dot on a page and stop because that is my vision I think, that is art. Is it good art? That is another question. For me, it is the same with photography, when I reach my vision and I say STOP, that is MY artistic expression. It could be straight out of the camera or I could spend hours working on it. To me it doesn’t matter. That is my final piece of art, but it might be for others, my viewers, to decide if it is good or not.
If, as Matt said, Art is made out of nothing, then Andy Warhol’s work, derived from photographic images cannot be Art. Nor most Pop art, collage etc. With all of the many branches of Art since the beginning of the 20th century, it is very difficult to find one simple definition that encompasses Art in its entirety.
Is a portrait painter an artist? The subject is there. The painter sees them, interprets what they see, and makes the painted portrait. The “camera” is in the painter’s brain. I think that this person is an artist. Good or bad is separate. Using a physical camera changes little.
To me it changes everything. You are a craftsman with a tool. Pointing it at a pretty scene or person doesn’t make you an artist (to me, personally). If you are good enough to point it at the right scene, or the right person/subject, then you are an expert photographer (which in my book, is better than any artist).
Blake, in my judgment won the argument. He is extremely insightful and perceptive. I like his comments on cooking and and how artistry is displayed in many, even commonplace, human endeavors. It is the first time I have heard him speak and will definitely check out his website. Thank you Matt for the enjoyable Podcast. Many members of our photography club follow you on a regular basis.
Matt –
A podcast you should listen to is from David Duchemin – 80 episodes – A Beautiful Anarchy. Take your time and then come back to this topic. I think it will bring you a different point of view.
You are photographing light not objects. Your brain is translating light and naming the objects. The camera captures this light then you brain can call it whatever you want – Art or Craft.
Judging photo’s: Technique – Composition – Impact. Impact is the most important idea.
I listen and read David’s work often and like it. I just substitute the word artist whenever I read his stuff because it’s way too touchy-feely-artsy for me. But when I remove that touchy-feely-mindful stuff he writes about, his advice is always very practical – and still 100% applies even if you don’t see photography as art.
Photography is a little like painting. If you paint your kitchen or bedrooms it’s a craft, especially if you do it well. A little like picture taking for a newspaper or a skilled printer. If you paint on a canvas for your own and other peoples enjoyment then maybe that ‘more’ Maybe art is defined by the reaction of the viewer and not the ‘artist’ . I have seen bridges, buildings, and statues that invoke an emotional response in me, maybe thats what I see as art?
I enjoyed your lighthearted discussion. I have to say that I identified more with Blake. I find that I consider myself an artist as well while processing my images. Although, my skill is clearly on a different level.
While listening to your discussion, I thought of my dad. He was a very skillful painting contractor and took a lot of pride in his work. He also enjoyed watching other craftsmen as they worked, especially if they were talented. The highest compliment that he could give someone, was to say that person “had it down to a fine art”.
As we mentioned in the podcast… it seems some people consider being an absolute expert at something an “art”. I consider it being an expert which is far beyond a better compliment than an artist to me personally. But everyone is different.
Although, yes, this was sometimes a discussion about semantics, it was mostly a philosophical discussion about craft and art. The definitions that were sometimes offered, needed to be tested against other disciplines; “something from nothing” as an argument against photography as an art form would not hold up if tested against painting, for example (not houses but pictures) and also WOULD support writing as an art form.
Matt, I do understand, as you seem to, that one can get an emotional response to a term like “artist.” I remember having such a feeling about the term “salesman” (which I had a (naive) negative response to decades ago that caused me to fail in an important interview). If you don’t want to be called an artist, then for you the argument is over.
I would also suggest that if someone feels they are trying to be artistic, then their results can be called art, regardless of quality. The notions of ‘good art’ and ‘bad art’ are not contradictions but judgements about results. Bad art cannot be used as a way to define what art is not, but only to suggest what bad art is. If artistic intention was truly present, then it is art. That is NOT the same as anything I unintentionally (or stupidly) do simply allows me to call it art.
Finally, ending where I started, philosophers have discussing ‘what is art’ for hundreds of years without reaching agreement. Good on you guys for giving it a shot!
Best,
Ced Bennett
I enjoyed the pod cast as well as I enjoyed reading these comments. Craft vs art, whether it’s a debate over semantics or a philosophical discussion, (I believe it is both) is a subject for endless discussion and a lot of coffee. I especially had to laugh when you mentioned Henri Cartier-Bresson. I felt he was stewing in his grave! He was also one lucky guy to have been where he was with a camera. So, in that respect, a good photo includes luck, as well as craft and artistic creativity!
This was fascinating. I would posit that if all you are doing with your photography is “copying,” in other words taking a snapshot of (for instance) a landscape icon, then perhaps that is not art (or at least not original work). However, if you are creating an image through your (human) creative vision, interpretation, need for expression of awe, wonder, trauma etc. then it is absolutely art (bad, good what-have-you). All art, including painting, is based, to some extent, on what already exists (an interpretation of a sitting model or an historical event etc.). When I think of contemporary photographers like Cole Thompson, William Neill, Huibo Hou and other very artistically creative photographers, to me, there is no question that what I am viewing is art because it is very clear that they have taken what already exists and transformed it through the human lens of creative interpretation into something expressive of the human condition. You’re so wrong in this one, Matt! ? ?
Good topic BUT 100 minutes is way over the top. EDIT–EDIT–EDIT
Best, brian Rybolt
100 minutes?
The word “craft” can be substituted for “art”, it seems. Photographers began to call their work, “art” when they wanted to gain some recognition from the “art world”. There are skilled craftspersons who can create works that are beyond the capability of the “ordinary” craftsperson. I agree with Matt that it doesn’t then qualify it as “art”. It means they are more capable, and perhaps, creative that stands out from the “ordinary”, which appeals more to people as it excites the senses more than the inexperienced craftsperson does.
listen to Blake at double speed? Are you having a laugh Matt???
Photography is both. Art, fine art, composite art, craft. Depends on what is being created.
The difference between a craftsman and an artist is that a craftsman doesn’t get insulted being called one where an artist considers being called a craftsman an insult.
I consider myself a photographer who works weekly on his craft.
I absolutely LOVE this!!! It embodies the way I feel about the “artists” I’ve met in the past. Not to say that all artists feel this way, and I’m sure there are exceptions so my apologies to them in advance. But let’s just say I haven’t met one that doesn’t 😉
I’m a photographer who works on her craft and her art constantly. And sometimes when I least expect it poof- there is ‘magic’- which is beyond me and yet there it appears.
Ps. I think it’s all ‘art’, including the craftsmen and their work, some of it is ‘good’ and some not so much!
I am an artist to the core, and it does not offend me when someone calls me a craftsman. It reinforces for me that my art is good enough to be held to a high level. I have been surrounded by artists my entire life, and I don’t think I’ve they would be offended by that, either.
As a thought experiment, how would you compare the authors of a stage play, a poem or a software manual (Macbeth, The Raven and the dBase III User’s Guide)? Writing can be very valuable as both an artistic expression and as documentation. Photography can be equally valuable as an expression of emotion, as “The Walk to Paradise Garden” and as a documentary image made an astronaut on the moon. Embrace them all …
I’ve never personally considered writing “art”. But that’s me and we’ve already proven I’m really weird in this area 🙂 I writer that evokes emotion and expression is just a really good (or expert) writer in my book – and the ones that don’t are not good writers. Just like photography – there are good ones and poor ones.
it can be both, end of discussion 🙂