Of course it’s not art, is it!
During a Dorset Arts Week exhibition a few years ago, I had a chap enter the gallery and individually inspect all 40 of my images on display. I watched with interest as he spent nearly 45 minutes scrutinising every detail from no more than 4 inches away. Finally, he walked up to me and said, “ Of course it’s not art, is it!” before scurrying away, never to be seen again. I have to admit to feeling stunned, slapped in the face and deflated, not least because I had no opportunity to put my point of view over. I felt indignant, harshly treated and hurt. The course of time has softened that hurt and I now realise his view is as subjective as any other. I am thankful to say the experience was one I have since learned to build on.
More than an operator
A friend recently confided that he was doubting aspects of his photography. We have talked before, and on more than one occasion he has questioned his own artistic nature even though he's an accomplished and fairly prolific landscape photographer. We have been on many a shoot together and during our mutterings we have often touched on the bigger picture as to whether indeed photography is art at all. After his recent airing of self-doubt, I was pleased afterwards that I had prodded his thought process enough to battle against his doubt and to consider HIS role as more than a mere camera operator in the creation process of making his images.
So what defines art?
Had I been given the opportunity to reply to my exhibition visitor and his bold declaration I would most definitely have argued my corner and put to him my point of view. I would probably have pointed out that the artistry is surely in the creative process of making the image and not in the tools or medium itself. Maybe quoting things like, “Is Pam Ayres’ poetic style considered to be any less of an art than William Wordsworth's?” They both used a pen. Then adding that the art of sculpture is not defined by the tools he or she uses. A painter uses brushes and paints and nobody questions if he or she is an artist. Musicians too. I could go on. So why does there seem to be this general inability to recognise using a camera to make art?
Mere operators or creative geniuses?
Let’s look at the photography medium and the skillset a photographer has to have when making an image. Many factors have to be considered: camera choice, lens choice, depth of field, implementing and the controlling of exposure. Add to that the post production and presentation techniques required and you have a plethora of skills to consider, and master, well before implementing visualisation or composing the image. All these choices have to be made and be at one with the artistic mind of the camera operator. Though this is not necessarily argument enough. The debate of whether it can be classed as art is not just in the mindset of the image maker and his or her ability to produce their masterpiece. It surely also has to be savoured by the viewer too and whether he sees it as art. If not, then he may have a legitimate argument to say it is not art. This would be true when accepting and appreciating any art form.
THE LAST WORD
So, rather than debating whether photography is an art form ... maybe a better question to ask is ... is the photographer an artist?
Next time someone declares my photography not to be art, my instant and immediate response will be:
“Maybe or maybe not ... but either way, I am the artist!"
AB.
To receive a notification when the next muse goes live please contact me >>
Related links
A personal statement of belief As I see it >>
Perception, purpose & photography An attentive eye >>
The pursuit of photographic genius The Blues >>