Photography as a Fine Art

by Matthew Smeal Compared to most art forms, photography is a relative newcomer. Having been around for less than 200 years, its place in the art world is still being established. Interestingly, there have been many arguments against photography being considered art, one of which is that the camera is a 'machine'. However, one must ask if a camera is any more a machine than a musician's instrument, a sculptor's chisel or a painter's brush? Another argument is that because of the nature of photography, endless prints can be made from the one negative. While true, it is for this reason that many photographers will produce their work as limited editions just as screen-printers, etchers and wood-block artists will. Some photographers have even been known to destroy their negatives after they have completed printing the edition. However, the ability to produce numerous prints is usually considered part of photography's uniqueness. Historically, many photographers themselves once considered photography a lesser art form. Called 'Pictorialists' these photographers produced work using soft focus, and often, poor quality, lenses hoping their work would look like Impressionist paintings. Although the Pictorialists won a small battle in having photography recognised and given wall space, they certainly didn't help win the war of photography being recognised purely on its own artistic merits. There is a great quote that states: "There is no art, only artists." Very true words, as there are many great artists who use photography as their chosen medium. It would be very hard for people to argue that the landscape and nature work of Ansel Adams; the natural world, nudes and still life's of Edward Weston; the abstract forms and textures of Brett Weston and the compositions of Paul Strand are not art. [] The modern-day ease of photography has also led to a lot of very poor photographic work being passed off as art. Automated cameras have also lent considerable weight to the argument that it's the camera doing the work, not the so-called artist. It is little wonder that many gallery owners are reluctant to give wall space to photographs. It must be remembered that the camera doesn't make a good photographer any more than a piano makes a good pianist or a brush makes a good painter. An artist is an artist no matter what the medium.

Where Photography Becomes Art what constitutes a fine art photograph would be quality: quality in composition, quality in the negative and quality in the print. Edward Weston once said that, "composition is the best way of seeing." [..] How a Fine Art Photographer Prints Ansel Adams was fond of saying that the negative is like a musician's score and the print is like their performance. Good photographers will know how to do both very well: photograph to produce good negatives and then make an expressive print that conveys what they saw and felt at the time of exposure. A photographer will go through a few stages before arriving at the fine print. [] All affect the look of the final print and it is the experience of the photographer to know how best to pull all these together to produce a print worthy of being called 'art'.

1) Write two argument against photography as a form of fine art 2) What constitutes a fine art photograph according to the text? 3) What is your opinion? What do you think makes a photograph worthy: the photographer, the camera or both?