Photography As Art - Revisited

Aesthetics Visual Arts
1

I’ve searched out and read previous posts/threads on this subject, but I’d like to nevertheless revisit it from a slightly different angle.

As a starting point, Stephen Speicher quotes in previous thread from Ayn Rand’s The Romantic Manifesto:

“A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, ighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful- but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.” (Ayn Rand, “Art and Cognition,” p. 74, The Romantic Manifesto.) 

Rand seems to regard the photographer as a technician and photography itself as a form of skilled craftsmanship – a sort of “visual stenography”, if you will – that is no more “artistic” than the craft of the recording technician who makes a recorded reproduction of a Halley concerto. While the music is certainly “art”, the recording of same is not.

As I read the above quotation:

Art = “selective re-creation”, “creation of a concrete” from a visual pre-conceptualization

vs.

Craft = “selective reproduction” of an existing concrete

“Selectivity” alone – the act of choosing what to include or omit, or which visual characteristics to emphasize or de-emphasize – is insufficient to make an activity “artistic”, according to Rand.

This view is reinforced by many “photographers” [sic] who use the term “capture” to describe their own activity – as though all photographs are merely “found” and faithfully recorded by their “visual stenography” instruments.

Now for the questions I’d like to discuss:

In the case of a painter, what is his/her actual “creation”? The tangible, paint-covered canvas? Or the image/vision embodied thereupon? Similarly, the “creation” of a composer isn’t the tangible, written score. Nor is it the recording via whatever media. It’s the sound(s), the arrangement of the ideas, right?

In the case of creative photography, doesn’t the vision or the idea precede the tangible embodiment of same? The photographer’s creation is the image or the vision – which may or may not already exist in reality – rather than the final print.

I acknowledge that some photography certainly may be merely documentary in nature – a dutiful reproduction of what is, without significant value-add from the mind of the person depressing the shutter button.

If a painter arranges a real bowl of fruit on a table before him from which to work, or a real human subject on a posing stool, does his/her rendering of these “existing concretes” become just as art-less as that of the photographer? If not, wherein lies the difference? Reality is processed by the mind of the artist; a vision is conceived in the mind before the brush ever touches the canvas (or before the film is ever loaded). Both use their knowledge of the characteristics of their respective media to make their visions become a sharable reality.

All thoughts welcomed.

2

I am a young music composer and have tackled some of the same questions you face in your post. (very well thought out btw) I have encountered however, one specific distinction between art and craft.

As a composer I have come to learn techniques and methods which I have added to my battery of knowledge in the feild. This is not unlike the learning and utilization of a specific language.

Each choice and aesthetic principle (such as any combonation of instruments or forms as related to the former, and my own developed abstractions of melody and musical ‘beauty’ [or value] as related to the latter) is subsumed by a specific concept or value which I have come to define as a sort of personal language. Each musical concept, wethter it be a fleeting string line or a bombastic trobone fanfare, has a specific and mutually exclusive aesthetic value to me as an artist.

It is the way I, as a composer, choose to utilize these concepts and the ways they specifically relate to each other (specifically thier order) that defines what the music on the page will become in and of itself. It is a case where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole so to speak.

That is art as I have come to know the term, and as it relates to my field.

Photography is a great example of a craft.

Simply put, a photo is merly the sum of whatever was in front of the shutter when it was opened, no matter the choices of the photographer.

The objects in front of a camera can only relate to what they are in reality no matter how they are veiwed or arranged. Whereas the concepts used to develop a passage of music or the strokes on a canvas were a direct result of the artist’s value judgements along with his understanding of his field. Each of which concepts relate specifically to each other within a given work.

A subject of a picture, though itself a concept, is merely a record and bears no realation to any abstractions other than the ones in objective reality under which it is subsumed.

A passage of music [or art, as it were] is a selective recreation of value through a sum of concepts developed in a specific way, in specific medium, and in accord with the artist’s judgements.

I feel this would be better comunicated in a lenghty converstation and at an hour other than 12am, but I think i have roughly made myself clear here.

to summarize and to cite my ‘one distinction’:

Craft: selctive recreation, utilization, arrangement, or communication (to cover most) of objective reality within a medium.

Art: selctive recreation, utilization, arrangement, or communication of an individual’s value judgments within a medium.

Please Comment :thumbsup:

3

Thank you for taking the time to read my post, to reflect upon it, and to share your reactions/thoughts.

Simply put, a photo is merly the sum of whatever was in front of the shutter when it was opened, no matter the choices of the photographer. 

This is a very fine re-phrasing of what I termed “visual stenography” above. And while it may accurately reflect what occurs in the case of an amateur snapshooter, it is precisely this limited understanding of creative photography with which I take exception.

The task of the Objectivist artist, as I have come to understand it in my admittedly limited study thus far, is to fashion a new, concrete representation of reality that incorporates his/her metaphysical value judgements about the nature/essence of life. This representation is to be experienced by the contemplator holistically – “right-brain” style, if you will – rather than incrementally, linearly, “left-brain” style.

The task of the Objectivist contemplator of art is to grasp these metaphysical value judgements and understand the artist’s sense of life – regardless of whether these judgements are “right” or “wrong” by Objectivist standards, or whether they coincide (or not) with those of the contemplator himself.

That said, let’s see if I can bring this back to the specific case of the photographer.

Van Gogh chooses a certain palette of colors, and creates a unique pattern of textures, to render his recreation of a night sky – the likes of which none of us have ever seen and which certainly doesn’t exist in reality. He does so in order to create a new, concrete representation of his vision of life (whatever that might be). He purposefully controls the range of brightness values, the hues, their respective saturations – and their proximities to one another – in order to achieve his ends. (Much like a composer purposefully controls the range of tones, their intensities and qualities, their arrangement, etc.)

If the photographer merely aims his apparatus and depresses the shutter – leaving all these things to chance and the characteristics/limitations of his medium – then he is certainly not behaving “artistically”. But a photographer might also purposefully control the selection of available hues (by filtration either at the moment of exposure or in printing, or in digital post-processing). He may likewise control – either expanding or compressing – the range of brightness values, in accordance with his vision, value judgements, sense of life, etc. He can create a reality the likes of which was NOT available to be “seen” and which doesn’t (did not) exist in reality, but which incorporates his values and Weltanschauung.

The photographer can create an image that is colorful or colorless, that incorporates a broad or narrow range of tones, in a monochromatic or polychromatic style, that is sharp or unsharp (or which embodies a selective mix/arrangement of sharpness and unsharpness). He can control both the subject and the lighting in the studio, or he can take these as he finds them in nature. He can control/alter the light as it falls on his selected subject, and again as it reflects from the subject and enters his apparatus. He may control/alter the light again in the printing process. He may coat with light-sensitive emulsion his choice of glass, paper, plastic, tin, cloth, leather – even lumber or a brick, if that is his choice. His apparatus itself may be a complex piece of technology with sophisticated optics, or it may be a shoebox or coffee can with merely a pinhole for an aperture and his fingertip for a shutter. All these choices/controls are placed in service to his vision – the image that exists PRIOR to the exposure only in the head of the photographer and nowhere in reality. This vision is certainly the byproduct of the photographer’s philosophy and value-judgements, and the resulting image communicates these holistically to the subsequent contemplator of the photographer’s creation.

A passage of music [or art, as it were] is a selective recreation of value through a sum of concepts developed in a specific way, in specific medium, and in accord with the artist’s judgements . . .

As a composer I have come to learn techniques and methods which I have added to my battery of knowledge in the feild [sic]. This is not unlike the learning and utilization of a specific language. . .

Each choice and aesthetic principle (such as any combonation [sic] of instruments or forms as related to the former, and my own developed abstractions of melody and  musical ‘beauty’ [or value] as related to the latter) is subsumed by a specific concept or value which I have come to define as a sort of personal language. 

I absolutely understand what you’re saying here.

If we limit our understanding of “photography” to only include the “Kodak Instamatic” sort, the “point & push” variant, with commercial processing that is outside the control of the “shutter pusher” – then I absolutely concur that this is NOT “art”.

I hope, however, that I’ve articulated the case for a more thoughtful, meaningful, value-judgement-infused sort of photography – a photography where the whole is “greater than the sum of the parts”. I would love to hear from aestheticians with a deeper understanding of Objectivism than my own, however.

In all frankness, I am concerned with this issue primarily because of the “all or nothing” approach that I perceive on the part of Objectivism (with a capital “O”). I’ve read repeatedly that every word of both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff is perfect and complete, and that if one alters a single brick the entire wall of Objectivism comes tumbling down. I’m not looking to pick an argument; rather, I am attempting to respectfully inquire as to where my thinking on this matter is in error (inasmuch as I seem to disagree here with the formal position of Objectivism).

-Bill

4

To have a better understanding of why photography, according to an objectivist, is not art we must isolate one concept, that of ‘photography’. It is simply a chemical/digital record of an ‘image’.

There is no argument here that the perceived image of an object may be of astronomical artistic value and may wholly represent the artist’s sense of life, but the ACT of photographing is not art in and of itself.

It would be better said that a ‘photographer’ is an artist in the realm of tactile and/or visual objects and chooses to record/archive/recreate/alter his artistic image through the field of photography.

I feel I can illustrate my personal understanding through the following hypothetical example:

‘I have a friend who is an artist. I have visited his studio to witness the synthesis of his wonderful images. I witness him in front of a white screen arranging lights, moving objects, selecting lenses, applying effects ect. This is seen as a very involved process. After all is ready, he stands behind his very expensive camera which he fabricated through research and knowledge of photography and clicks the button. He takes a break and retires for lunch. I, in my curiosity, look through the camera and see the result of his work. In my excitement I click the button also.’

Now there would be no argument that I did not create a duplicate record of that image. However, then could it be argued that I am of the same artistic caliber as my friend? Of course not.

I feel my initial confusion on the matter of Photography as art is a consequence of blurring concepts. (pun intended) The photographer may indeed be an artist but, (just as the record of music is not art in itself) it is the image, not the record thereof that is considered art.

Photography is not subsumed by the concept of art.

“The photographer can create an image…”

^Exactly^

Isolation of concepts allows us to see the world around us in HD. :thumbsup:

Thanks for the provocative post!

5

OK! Let’s run with this a while. This is interesting and exactly the sort of discussion for which I was hoping. I also hope that this thread proves sufficiently interesting and provacative so as to entice others to participate as well.

So that I don’t run off into left field responding to something that is NOT your position (or that is not your understanding of the position of Objectivists at large), please allow me to attempt to summarize what I gathered from your preceding post:

It would appear that my understanding/definition of the “concept” of photography is much larger than yours. Mine includes many activities both before and after the pressing of the hypothetical shutter button – activities that you appear willing to call “artistic”, but which you exclude from your definition of “photography” per se. (Moreover, you seem to consider only activities PRIOR to the exposure, but I’ll get back to that thought later.)

Paraphrasing:

“The ‘artistic’ in the activity of the photographer precedes the act of exposing the light-sensitive medium. It lies in the selecting (and by implication the omitting), the arranging, the illuminating, etc. – and NOT in the recording/exposing. Similarly, the ‘artistic’ in the activity of the composer precedes the act of actually writing it down. It lies in the arrangement of the audible ideas – and NOT in the comparatively mundane transcription of those ideas into written notes on paper.”

So far, so good?

I wonder why it is that the concept of “composing” refers to the “idea creation” phase of the composer’s activity, but the concept of “photographing” refers only to the “transcription/recording”? Does this seem arbitrary to anyone? Or is there a rational foundation for this different treatment? Does the “art” of the painter lie in BOTH the conception of the idea AND in the execution of the concrete reality? Same for a sculptor? I think not.

A skilled copyist who sees and paints a clone of the Mona Lisa is not a “painter” and is therefore not an artist. Likewise, a skilled transcriptionist who hears a Halley concerto and writes it down (accurately, faithfully and equally beautifully) is not a “composer” and is therefore not an artist. It seems, then, that the execution is actually LESS essential than the conception – since the execution can be mimicked by the non-artist.

How do we decide which precise moment in the creative process to consider “essential” in each of these activities? In the cases of painting and composing as described above, we seem to be focusing on the visualization or conceptualization phase. The “execution” phase can be decidedly non-artistic – the activity of a craftsman or a technician. In contrast, in the case of the photographer, we seem to (rather arbitrarily) consider only the moment of execution/exposure to be essential to the activity/concept of “photography”. Much of what I consider “essential” to fine photography occurs both before and after the instant of actual exposure.

‘I have a friend who is an artist. I have visited his studio to witness the synthesis of his wonderful images. I witness him in front of a white screen arranging lights, moving objects, selecting lenses, applying effects ect. This is seen as a very involved process. After all is ready, he stands behind his very expensive camera which he fabricated through research and knowledge of photography and clicks the button. He takes a break and retires for lunch. I, in my curiosity, look through the camera and see the result of his work. In my excitement I click the button also.’

If, instead of also clicking the button on your artist-friend’s camera, you had (in your excitement) set up an easel and canvas and made an oil-painting of your friend’s arrangement of lights, objects, textures, etc., would your activity have been “artistic” in this case? When the visual data enters your eyeball, is processed by your brain, and when your brain directs your hand to mix and select the colors and apply them to the surface in a texture of your own choosing, does your creation not become infused with your own personal value judgements about the nature of life and reality?

What if, prior to taking his lunch, your friend had kept his exposure data secret and scrambled the controls on the camera – leaving you to make these selections for yourself. You make different selections and thereby create (accidentally, insofar as you are hypothetically not knowledgeable either in optics or in the characteristics and behaviors of your friend’s chosen light-sensitive medium) a quite different image. It is different in terms of which portions of the image are sharp and unsharp, which portions of the subject’s tonal range are rendered and how (i.e., different relative densities or colors on the negative and/or subsequent print), etc.

Alternatively, let’s stipulate that your artist-friend depressed the shutter, reloaded the camera with fresh, identical light-sensitive medium, and left the camera absolutely unaltered when he left for lunch. You expose a negative absolutely identically to his. He, however, chooses a chemical developer that either accentuates or minimizes the grain characteristics of his chosen emulsion, according to his vision and preconceptualization. He selects a development time and temperature to either expand or reduce the range of tones/densities on his negative. He prints it in a different size, with a different crop on on a paper (or a non-paper light-sensitive material) with a peculiar texture – all choices made for their contributions toward realizing the preconceptualized vision. (This is a tip of the “post-exposure artistry” iceberg to which I earlier said I would return.)

It would be better said that a ‘photographer’ is an artist in the realm of tactile and/or visual objects and chooses to record/archive/recreate/alter his artistic image through the field of photography.

I know that you are suggesting that this *is* the artistic portion of the photographer’s activity. Yet this seems to reduce the photographer’s activity to the equivalent of that of a flower arranger, interior decorator or cosmetologist – essentially that of an “arranger”, an “illumination specialist” or “makeup & wardrobe expert”.

I think, for example, of a “sandcastle artist” whose art is unrelated to the creation of two-dimensional images, but who uses film merely to “record” or “archive” his creations. That’s not how I see myself.

So where does this leave us?

I guess my most pressing question at the moment is why Objectivists wish to define “photography” so narrowly, while defining other 2D visual arts much more broadly.

6

I wonder why it is that the concept of “composing” refers to the “idea creation” phase of the composer’s activity, but the concept of “photographing” refers only to the “transcription/recording”? Does this seem arbitrary to anyone? Or is there a rational foundation for this different treatment? Does the “art” of the painter lie in BOTH the conception of the idea AND in the execution of the concrete reality? Same for a sculptor? I think not.

This one point that stuck out to me. There will be more on this wide post as my time becomes more available.

‘Composing’, as it relates to music, is in fact the process of creation. ‘Transcription’ is its technical counterpart.

Just as an artist’s selective eyes and values are the initiators of the creation of an image. “Imaging” if you will.‘Photography’ is its technical counterpart.

If, instead of also clicking the button on your artist-friend’s camera, you had (in your excitement) set up an easel and canvas and made an oil-painting of your friend’s arrangement of lights, objects, textures, etc., would your activity have been “artistic” in this case? When the visual data enters your eyeball, is processed by your brain, and when your brain directs your hand to mix and select the colors and apply them to the surface in a texture of your own choosing, does your creation not become infused with your own personal value judgements about the nature of life and reality?

I think it is an issue of medium.

If I were to go off and rearrange a Haley Concerto but only change the instruments and leave the notes unchanged It would merely be a change of medium because the only judgement i made was what way I chose to represent Haley’s ideas.

I feel this comparison between music and photography, however intriuging, is not well served in illistrating some of the web of concepts you’ve weaved in the previous post.

I feel If we could clearly define the following terms we would be on the right track.

‘Photography’

‘An Artistic activity’

‘simple medium’

More later,

Time runs short.

:o

7

Ayn Rand, bless her soul, was clearly not a photographer.

Photography is an art; photography extends beyond merely pointing and clicking a camera at a setting you desire to record. Certainly creating the setting (in some cases) and composing the picture are factors that make it an art but consider the obvious: the stages of film development and printing. Certainly, two lab technicians, would never produce the same picture.

When you develop film, you make artistic decisions on how you would like the negatives to turn out. For example, the artist might choose to push the development process to increase the contrast. In printing, the process presents an even greater amount of artistic opportunity. You can completely alter the appearance of a picture by dodging and burning certain areas.

Certainly, there have been many artists who have pioneered different photographic methods: Man Ray, who popularized the Sabatier Effect, and Ansel Adams who invented the zone system of photography.

If you believe these to be antiquated forms, consider modern graphic design and computer applications such as Photoshop, which borrows many concepts from the darkroom. What is it that modern graphic designers do that Man Ran and Ansel Adams did not? Certainly, they work with new tools. In essence, however, they create the same art.

Of course, when you incorrectly generalize by saying “a camera cannot perform the basic task of painting”, as Ayn Rand has done, photography can indeed sound like nothing more than a scientific procedure.

And I might add that I cringe that she regards commercial photography as being the form of photography closest to art - “the commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings”, she says, and certainly, there have been great commercial photographers/artists. But there is, quite frankly, a lot of trash in the commercial mainstream; commercial photographers are no greater artists than their freelance counterparts.

8

I am an amateur photographer and I have had the chance to have my photograps used by an artist as a motif for his painting. Comparing my photo and tha artist’s painting, I have come to realize why indeed photography is NOT an art form.

My photo was that of a large landscape, and I think it is one of the best photos I have ever done. However, looking at the artist’s painting, I noticed how he had neatly removed some things. For example, the camera had recorded various shrubbery that the painter deemed could spoil the theme of his painting. By this simple decision, the artist had removed the unimportant and the inconsequential from his work in order to emphasize what he saw as important for his theme. The camera cannot do that. Yes, you can use various techniques to emphasize what you liked about the particular shot, but the imperfection, the unimportant is still there.

The greatest artist includes in his work only that which he sees important, only that which emphasizes the subject of his work. Whatever you find in an artwork is important to its subject and the principles the author wanted to expose. This is why, when using a camera, you are not an artist, but rather a journalist. Whether you take shots of scenery you have no control over, or of the scenery you deliberately set up only for the photo, you are not making a work of art. There is always a shadow that doesn’t have to be there, or a nuance that the artist would not want to include in his painting for some reason. As a photographer, you do not choose what to include in your photograph - whatever is in the scope of your objective lens goes in whether you want it or not.

Thus, in an artwork, whatever you find inside was included because it is important; in a photograph, whatever you find inside is included simply because it is.

I also suggest reading the last chapter of OPAR.

9

What is photography? Photo(light)Graphy(write), writing with light. Photography is a process, just like painting and transcribing music is. Art is not simply writing notes down on a staff, or slopping paint onto a canvas, so then art is not just clicking the button of the camera in order to let light imprint an image into the emulsion.

I am an artist. I paint, draw, write music, and I am a photographer. Each one of the things I just mentioned is a medium, a way of performing or recording art. When I create a work of art using photography, the art making is not in the clicking of the shutter or the developing of the film, that is only the way I write it down on the final print so to speak. It is the application of paint to a canvas, but not the act of making art. Photography can be a medium for art, but its is not an art in itself, just like painting your staircase isn’t art.