Since the world has turned to digital photography I feel that photography itself has lost its status as art.
I started my education as a photography student in a basic photography class. After that, the next class offered was a black and white class. I was taught how to use a dark room and how to use chemicals to develop my own film and develop my own pictures. When I was done with my finished product, I felt a sense of accomplishment. That sense came from hands on work to create a piece of art. Now all it takes to make a photo is the click of a button, uploading it to a computer and printing it out.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, art is defined as “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of aesthetic objects.” With Photoshop and all the other programs out there used to manipulate photos, imagination during the process of creating that photo is no longer needed. Some argue that by manipulating a photograph in Photoshop makes that photograph art, but then it’s no longer a photograph and it becomes a Photoshop image.
Before digital photography or even color photography a lot of work went in to making a photograph. Back in the day, to make a color photograph artists would hand paint the image to make it color.
Northern Michigan University is even taking the art out of photography. They just recently replaced their black and white photography class with a digital photography class and now an art and design student can’t get into the amazing dark room facility the art building has until they get into upper level classes.
Photography is not an art anymore, but a way to preserve a moment in time. I wish that we could go back to the days of the dark room because there was nothing more I loved then spending an entire day there. I do realize with the fast-paced life today that it would be impractical and impossible. I just hope that the dark room process won’t be forgotten forever.
Antinet • Jul 17, 2014 at 12:45 am
Your point is one of being luddite, and for that you are inaccurate, but as a photographer, a fine artist, and a painter who needs a lot more practice, I will tell you that most photography is NOT art, mostly because there is no real unique signature of who took the picture. Pixels are the same are the same are the same. Brushstrokes may be mostly the same, but great painters make them their own, and how they represent the world is all theirs. Same can be true of photography, but then you go right through the same lenses, and the same pixels again, and YOUR identity is stripped out.
THere are ways to make photography art, and I have spent a lot of time at it, but there is so much schlock out there trying to be art, that its perpetrators really need to wake up. Handmade is still where it’s at, especially in such a digitally saturated atmoized world.
DGH • May 27, 2013 at 5:39 pm
You are correct photography is no longer an art. Some of your commentors are wrong when they suggest that using a computer program is the same as working in a darkroom. Sorry no, if they had ever worked as a custom printer in the old days of silver halide materials you would know that this is not true. It took skill to burn and dodge or to compress the world into the five stop range of paper from the eight stop range of film. It took time and expertise to set a color pack and do a filter dodge now you use a mouse and think it is the same just as you think that a CCD is the same as film. It isn’t. Film is an organic medium that captures light in a way that no CCD ever will. That is not a bad thing people will learn to use the new technology for its own atributes. But to me film will aways do a better job capturing the feel and emotion of light.
But Photography is dead as an art form just look at wedding photography. It use to be an art now its the bride playing leap frog with the groom with a photoshoped background. It has become cras and forgetable nothing like the work of Joseph Karsch or Arnold Newman it has become a world of Annie Leibovitzs where mediocrity replaces talent.
dali_lama_2k • Sep 10, 2012 at 1:59 am
Wow. A lot of passion here on both sides, but is there no one riding the fence? Though there can be little argument as to the validity of film photography and development being an art form, digital imaging does indeed have its own merit. Consider that programs like Photoshop and the like take a very long time to learn. Two people might take a similar image and only one might come out of post-process looking any good. Even a film photographer must process their negatives or slides in their own way. That demonstrates that there was unique thought and creativity employed for both. Art is about creativity, and requires unique talent whatever the medium might be. Digital photographers have little desire to usurp traditional film, they don’t care about being better, worse, etc, they just want to make beautiful things.
Ravimi • Aug 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Hello Adelle, from reading your post I understand you have an issue with Digital photography and I understand your frustration. I’d also like to say that photo editing/post processing is definitely a digital work that I don’t like to consider photography as much as digital art, but no matter what, it’s still art.
I personally do not post process, I do everything straight from the camera. ALL of my published pictures have never been post processed, the only thing added was my watermark, nothing else. I do not even crop my images. I believe (for personal use) in only using my skills with my camera. I also do everything in manual mode. I’m self taught (never taken a class, would like too) and only started a little less than a year ago.
With your opinion would you mind looking over my images? this is my new Tumblr account http://ravimi.tumblr.com/ and the images are all black and white (my camera has a monochrome setting) so let me know what you think.
fuchsto • Feb 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm
As a reply to Andrea:
“Software like Adobe Photoshop and Nik Silver Efex require just as much skill to use well as that required in a darkroom. The only difference is that you can now process your images sitting on your couch instead of in a fume filled closet.”
This is a widespread and horribly wrong idea.
Having used both Silver Efex + Photoshop as well as chemical film / print processes for years, i beg to differ. So will anyone who ever tried to “nail” a photograph in an analog workflow.
In film photography,
– before even taking the photograph, i have to decide for exactly one type of film – including film speed (ISO). This is also true for digital, but with film, i have to stick to this decision for 36 (small format) or 11 (medium format) captures.
– when developing the negative, i have to decide for exactly one chemical, developer temperature, agitation and development time.
Once a negative is developed, none of those decisions can be undone ever. In digital, i just re-open the raw file.
In the darkroom, you have VERY limited options on how to manipulate the print. You have 30 seconds (max!) for dodging and burning, and close to no options in paper development.
In Silver Efex, you open the raw file and you have all the time in the world to manipulate the crap out of this boring photo you took. Most importantly, you can change the (simulated) film type and speed, apply bloom filters, etc.
Conclusion: Silver Efex and Photoshop are dead-simple to master and extremely convenient. It is not an admirable accomplishment to convert a digital photograph into a silver film simulation. A “fine art” print from the darkroom that really nails every ray of light IS hard work and takes years to master. That’s why i love film photography as a hobby: It’s not easy. It’s damn hard and inconvenient.
The satisfaction i get from a good film print is overwhelming and by no means comparable to a digitally post-processed image. Also: Dynamic range, baby. Film provides amazingly high dynamic range (with ONE shot, not three or more like you need in digital).
Only a darkroom user can understand what i’m talking about. Also: Film chemicals smell great and are *not* that hazardous. Just don’t drink too much of it
Or use coffee and vitamin C. I wouldn’t drink that either, though, cold coffee tastes horrible.
fuchsto • Feb 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Let me first tell a bit about my background.
I’m drawing and painting since i’m 13, had a major course of art at school, and was admitted to the Munich Academy of Art after high school (but chose to study computer science). I’m an ambitious amateur photographer for some years, and for about one year, i take photos exclusively on black and white, silver-based film, developing my film in custom chemicals, enlarging them using a Focomat IIc on photographic paper i also develop myself.
I use full-manual cameras (Leica M6 and Mamiya 7II), not even SLRs but rangefinders with manual focus, manual film transport, aperture and exposure. I only work in available light situations.
There were lots of photographs by Feininger and Bresson in my parent’s home. Last year, i had my first exibition in Munich, Germany.
I really, really know what i am talking about.
And i totally agree with your article. Yes, it’s absolutely true, and it’s unsurprising people are upset about your opinion. Especially amateur photographers, because those are the most vain people ever. Think about it: Why does someone want to do “artsy” photography? To aggrandize themselves. As they are lacking skill, education and inspiration, the only way to “be an artist” is photography. Claiming photography is not an art takes this away from them.
Even if i manufactured ten awesome baryt prints on a weekend, i think of myself as a hobbyist. Having a photographic eye, having learned to use a tool and a manufactoring process, even having had some exhibitions does NOT make me an artist.
And most photographers i know are way, way more apart from “art” than me. All photographers (except for 2 film photographers) i personally know are …
– using a DSLR and consider manual mode a “sophisticated craft”
– untalented
– offended when very politely criticised. Actually, offended by anything that is not exaggerated praise. See: Vain.
– *totally* ignorant of art (“Duchamp? Who?”)
– taking pictures of old people’s hands, putting them on facebook / flickr and harvesting sh*tloads of comments in the line of “Beeeaaauuutifulllll!!!!” or “WOW, you really can see those hands tell a story!!!! SO INSPIRING!!”
– also: Old fences, old brickwalls, ruined houses, old trees, girls in sheets, all digital black and white of course.
– using color key effects, HDR, desaturation effects, … Consider it “advanced techniques”.
– helpless without photoshop.
Of course taking a “nice” photograph is by no means art. Most amateur photography is “naive art” at best.
Most people mistake an aesthetic picture as art. Appealing to the eye is enough to sell as a cultural gem.
It *can* be art, if you manage to transport an intelligent idea, a vision, a message. Sometimes, a photograph works better than a painting, as it suggest reality.
Perhaps i’m too picky. I don’t consider Ansel Adams an artist. He was a brilliant craftsman, i learned a lot from his books, but i don’t feel enlightened when looking at his photographs.
Another way to qualify something as art is using cultural references or hommages to other artists. Yes, some Simpsons episodes are more sophisticated than some Gigabyte of flickr images.
Of course most people are lacking education, intelligence and inspiration for an artistic image. And they try to compensate with technical knowledge.
Why Bresson was an artist? Because he was a pioneer (inspiration) in the idea of using public spaces as a ready-made (reference), non-deterministic stage, and a photograph is able to tell a story that perhaps wasn’t even there (message). And *in addition*, his work is appealing to the eye.
He could have done the same, in theory, with quick sketches. But a sketch would lack the important aspect of reality.
An artist uses a medium because it best suits the message, not just because it’s the only medium he can master.
z • Oct 27, 2011 at 7:29 am
As we can see above, the great masses just can’t cope with the fact that their medium of expression made too easy and accessible doesn’t do the trick anymore… They rather hold on to saying ‘no photos are art’. You can count to three and nobody will be interested in photography anymore. This medium is way to abused.
z • Oct 27, 2011 at 7:15 am
Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So sad of discovering your site only now, I have waited for this since years now. I have felt this in me so long ago, and I had to wait it out to concretize, but know I know that this has been my problem with photograpy all the time after I started to study photography at the university. I can’t say that I regret doing it, but now my diploma isn’t worth shit ’cause everybody is doing it too. Once I thought it was special and it really takes years of artistic education to do great photos, and to know the technical side too. I’m devastated of the fact that once photography was invented to proove and to share the raw truth of moment and happenings. And today this has turned to its direct opposite: you can’t find an ‘artistic’ method of expression that is more untrue, manipulated, altered(they like it more: ‘edited’) even if just by raising contrast, and making so simple and everyday things into dramatic shit that doesn’t add anything new to the word only expresses ones obsession of ‘cool’, dark and pessimistic mystification of what they not even intented to understand. I’m fed up with photography, it’s choking me, images called art, and truly devious ‘artist’ are infesting every single corner(once so peaceful and clean) of the word and pushing ‘their world’ and stupid images in my face, I can’t breathe!!! So if you are against what’s photography’s become(sorry from this point we just cannot go back and praise what once was so pure) aling with me, the battle is on!
Guy Strong • Apr 21, 2011 at 12:45 am
I like the article but as i was interviewed for this change in classes one big reason for digital coming before darkroom is simply money for students that are not photo majors just simple as that. If you really wanted to take higher level photo classes so you could use the darkroom you could just get a prof to sign off on it no big deal. But as you are a sports photographer and just press a button to take a image its not hard to see how your short sighted on photography no longer being an art form simply because all you are doing is trying to capture a moment. Coming from a professional background and working on one of the biggest ad campaigns of the last century i can tell you that to actually create one image can take over 4 days worth of work. thats not including being on set and composing the image or the scouts to find the locations. so i see how this article is essentially just your point of view but you may want to actually do some research into what the world of photography is like out of college, because to be quite honest northern michigan universities photography program is way below subpar.
Sarah • Apr 20, 2011 at 11:59 pm
I am completely shocked and appalled that this article was given the ‘ok’ to be printed. Adelle, you obviously don’t understand anything about what you had written. Just because you took a class or two in the Art and Design building, does not make you and expert at deciding whether or not Photography is still an art form. You didn’t take enough classes to truly appreciate what makes photography art.
I graduated from NMU with my BFA in Art and Design with my concentration in Photography and let me just say, it takes a lot of skill and imagination to look through the viewfinder to create your image. That’s where the initial idea comes from!!! Your whole basis of your work comes from your eyes and what it sees in that tiny hole. We were taught attention to detail, ideas, concepts and to rack our brains for conceptual ideas to express. We were constantly pushed to enter photo contests and get a gallery viewing anywhere we could get our hands on. We are constantly thinking about light, how it affects our subjects, how to operate our camera in MANUAL mode to accommodate the shift as well as timing, ISO and shutter speed. We’re not working in AUTO mode, here, Adelle. WE are controlling the camera and our settings and the subjects, the camera is NOT controlling us.
I would also like to point out that Photoshop is not the ultimate image creator, it is a TOOL that ASSISTS in ENHANCING the ART we had just created with our eyes, ideas & cameras. I am ‘consciously using skill and creative imagination to produce my work’, it is NOT a simple: Point, shoot, upload & vola!
I dislike how you compare and contrast everyday people who own a point and shoot camera and how they operate what they do, to actual, photographic artists who put more thought, time and energy into our work, then just figuring out if Becky is making the right kissy face with a peace sign thrown in front for that perfect Facebook profile picture. Before you want to go insult a profession and those who dedicate their lives to it, I would expect a more thorough explanation and actual references then just your short-lived experience in the dark room, to make a sound judgement on whether or not Photography is considered an art.
Monica • Apr 19, 2011 at 3:35 pm
While I appreciate the urge for students to learn the old school dark room methods of developing photographs—and I have experienced this myself at NMU—both traditional and digital forms of photography should be respected as forms of art. I certainly don’t believe that using new technology renders a photographer inartistic. To suggest that accessible, more developed technology disparages the artistic value of photography astounds me. In all honesty, I feel this statement is on the verge of pretentiousness. Perhaps it’s upsetting for many passionate photographers to see their efforts in the dark room being undermined by the growing popularity of digital SLRs and cheap point-and-shoots, but I personally don’t believe that the methods chosen—in any artistic medium—determine whether something is “art” or not (and there’s no way I’d use a dictionary to define what art is). In my view, what’s truly important is the subject matter and composition; the process used to achieve the resulting artwork is of less importance. However, I do think amateur photographers should at least attempt to learn how to shoot manually whenever possible in order to have more control over their photos and make more conscious decisions (i.e. avoid preset modes). I don’t exactly see how traditionally developing a photo and touching up a photo on a computer are incomparable processes; they both involve conscious decision making, don’t they? One process is more difficult than the other, that’s for sure, but I don’t feel that gives it more validity as an art form. Why is there no creative imagination involved in digital photography? I would say that I’m equally imaginative with both digital and non-digital cameras.
I’m not quite sure why students are no longer taught traditional photography in lower level classes here, but I don’t necessarily have a problem with students having the ability to toy with composition and all the photography basics before learning somewhat more complicated traditional methods of photography. I think it’s wonderful that digital cameras (and sometimes even photo editing programs—if they’re not overused, of course) allow people to experience photography in a less intimidating manner. Not everyone has access to a dark room, after all. But hopefully, if students have a passion for photography, they will continue taking courses offered by the Art & Design department until dark rooms come into play.
Mike O'Brien • Apr 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Hello, Adelle– May I respectfully suggest that art is created by humans using whatever tools they choose to achieve their desired outcomes. The art part lies in the artist’s vision, more so than in choice of tools. I hope you will continue to explore photography with an open mind regarding the tools that fit your vision.
Andrea Zocchi • Apr 18, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I enjoyed your article but i don’t agree. I think that what you are missing in today’s world of camera phones and digital SLRs is not the art of making images but the “craft.”
Photography as art is still alive and well, just look in any major art museum. What is happening is that the craft is changing. The traditional darkroom is being replaced with the digital darkroom. Software like Adobe Photoshop and Nik Silver Efex require just as much skill to use well as that required in a darkroom. The only difference is that you can now process your images sitting on your couch instead of in a fume filled closet. Anyway the most difficult part of making true art is having the vision and the skill to make your vision a reality.
Technology is even make traditional photographic processes more accessible. There is a company http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com that is using a laser as as enlarger to expose traditional black and white photo paper. They then process that paper in traditional chemistry to make black and white prints just like those made in a traditional darkroom.
Although we are bombarded by mediocre imagery I think that the art and the craft of photography is alive and well.