Photography: An Art or a Science?
Cailin Zarate
Chapman University
February 20, 2021
For this essay, I’ve chosen to talk about William Henry Fox Talbot’s photograph The Open Door, 1844, from our textbook. The image itself is not too exciting or complex, and it certainly is one that Joseph Pennell would have harshly criticized, but its simplicity is perfect for my argument- that photography is indeed a form of art. There has been a long-running debate on the status of photography- art or a science? Of course, it takes quite a bit of science to create a photograph, but the end result is much more than that. I will elaborate on this more but before I can move forward, I must first define art itself.
In Elizabeth Kreiner’s book Toward a Definition of Art, it is said that art is any “human activity in which one, through the conscious use of skill and imagination, represents a particular action or experience with the intention of illuminating the universal quality of that action, producing delight through instruction."[1] This definition is quite broad, but Kreiner elaborates on what it takes to be considered art; the work must be created with some degree of skill and imagination.[2] The amount of these two values can vary, but must both be included. Kreiner goes on to give some more defining points that I found to be helpful in defining art; art can be a political weapon, art is a “moral vehicle”, and art imitates life.[3] One thing that stuck with me is Aristotle’s definition of art, which Kreiner also included in her text, “for Aristotle, art is not a way to understand a higher universal reality but a way for one to understand the human condition."[4] Photography has succeeded in doing this- imitating the human experience- photography allows people to see life through many different lenses.
The photograph I have chosen is a simple image; an old broom leans against the outside wall of Talbot’s Lacock Abbey, with an open door directly behind the broom. The photo is a moment of life, there is the presence of people in the door being ajar and the broom being placed just so. Was someone just using this broom? Did they go inside to take a break from their outdoor duties? During our class discussion, I made a connection with this photograph to Disney’s Cinderella film; one could say that there is a mystical quality of this photo, similar to the magic that Disney’s animators capture so well. I can imagine a bustling housemaid coming and going through this door or a young stable boy following commands shouted from the main house. Beyond the door, it is quite dark, and it is difficult to see the inside of the building aside from a window on the far wall. In the textbook, Larry Schaaf draws on the conclusion that the image The Open door symbolizes the contrast between light and dark, life and death.[5] I’ve interpreted this as in life there is work (which is shown by the broom) and with death, there is the unknown (represented by the complete darkness of the house). There is depth to this photograph that takes you far beyond a broom and a doorway.
In defense of my position, I will use The Open Door to show that even at its start, photographs were taken with forethought, skill, and imagination. Photographers might not have used the same training and techniques as painters and sculptures, but there is intention used to determine where the camera was to be placed, what direction the image was to be taken from, and so on. More so, the subject(s) that was to be immortalized was predetermined; even impulsive, messy, blurry, and less planned and photographs required a moment of thought before the image was taken. I’ll make a connection to photos taken today, it is not uncommon to see hastily taken images with awkward angles and poor lighting, they may not be the best in quality but that reckless lack of style has become a style in itself. In the moments before the photo was taken, the photographer came to the realization that the sight before them was worthy of a picture. Painters and sculptors may take months or years to create their art, but it all starts just like a hastily taken photograph- with that one moment of realization that this certain thing needs to be captured forever. On occasion, I will go out for a walk and come across a particular flower that captures my attention. I might snap an image of that flower, but before that moment, I had no intention or expectation to come across such a subject. Does this photograph count as art even though it took two seconds of planning, one second for execution, and the aid of digital technology? I say yes. After making the decision to take the photograph, I might mess around with the angles or rearrange the scene to my liking. I am using my skill and imagination to make this photograph, thus defining it as art. My work may not be exceptional, but it is a little lens through which another person may view my own life.
Our textbook and the journal The Science of Photography both explain in detail the chemical process and developmental timeline of photography in the early 1800s. "Photography is divided into two divisions: (1) the study of the light-sensitive substance itself and the changes which it undergoes in its transformation into an image; (2) the properties of that image when obtained and their relation to the original distribution of light and shade by which the image was produced."[6] Because of its chemical and technological components, many critics, including Pennell, regard photography as a product of science and not an artistic creation. Pennell wrote, “The art of the photographer is to make his photographs as much like something that they are not as he can."[7] To his point, photography can be a type of exact replication of the real world, but are paintings and sculptures not? To me, it sounds like Pennell only accepts art that fogs reality, as if realistic images serve no other purpose except scientific documentation. I feel that Talbot and Daguerre’s works prove Pennell wrong, they manipulated the reality that they chose to capture with photography, making their work more than just a scientific replication of reality. This thinking even fits into Greek philosopher Plato’s definition of art, “an imitation of an imitation”- a copy of real life.[8]
To this day, photography is still valued below other art mediums. I can imagine that the longer creation time is the biggest factor of price. A photo is cheap because it takes minutes (or seconds today) to create, but other mediums of art can take weeks or even years to complete. Those who commission painted or sculpted art pay higher amounts of money to cover the cost of the artist’s food, housing, and labor during the creation process. Because of the technology that allows photographers to quickly create images, photographers have been deemed “lazy”. So prints and copies of original photography are not given the same monetary or artistic value as paintings- despite the needed skill and imagination to take said photographs. I would like to interject here the price it takes to have professional photography done in today’s time. For a 1-hour session, the price can range from $50-400 depending on the skill level of the photographer and the type of event being photographed (this price also does not include the cost of printing and editing each photo). This concept, for me, confirms my stance in the argument that photography is indeed art. It takes a certain level of skill to create complex and unique images, knowing how to pose the subject, angle the camera, and manipulate the lighting all takes practice- a staple in art-making.
The argument that photography is no more than science is perpetuated by people like Joseph Pennell who claimed in his book that photographs did not require the training and skill that other art forms did. Additionally, he claimed that photographers simply rely on technology to create the output, they have no impact on the outcome themselves, and they can only guess how the image will look in the end. As mentioned before, this labeled photography as lazy and unintentionally done.[9] Pennell also wrote “photographers throw out tradition whereas artists conserve them”, this ties into the science aspect of photography.[10] As the years progressed, so did the methods of capturing images permanently. This technological innovation challenged the "traditions of painting", using simple oils and pigments on a canvas surface, the very same process that had been used for hundreds of years prior.[11] This sequence of scientific developments was not organic or honest enough for art critics of the Victorian era.
As a photographer myself, I can appreciate the science behind each photograph. One could even say that the art of making photography is a science by itself. But I recognize photography as another art form, one that deserves the same praise and recognition as paintings and sculptures. I can understand the discourse and difference between photography and other art forms, and though the processes may be quite different, the end result is still a reflection of the human experience. I challenge that photography can be both a science and an art form interchangeably.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 7. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[2] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 8. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[3] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 8. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[4] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 9. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[5] Mary Warner Marien. "Photography: a Cultural History." London, England: Laurence King Publishing ltd (2011): 28.
[6] C. E. Kenneth Mees. "The Science of Photography." The Scientific Monthly 32, no. 5 (1931):408. Accessed February 22, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/14955.
[7] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 212.
[8] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 8. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[9] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 212.
[10] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 212.
[11] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 211.
Chapman University
February 20, 2021
For this essay, I’ve chosen to talk about William Henry Fox Talbot’s photograph The Open Door, 1844, from our textbook. The image itself is not too exciting or complex, and it certainly is one that Joseph Pennell would have harshly criticized, but its simplicity is perfect for my argument- that photography is indeed a form of art. There has been a long-running debate on the status of photography- art or a science? Of course, it takes quite a bit of science to create a photograph, but the end result is much more than that. I will elaborate on this more but before I can move forward, I must first define art itself.
In Elizabeth Kreiner’s book Toward a Definition of Art, it is said that art is any “human activity in which one, through the conscious use of skill and imagination, represents a particular action or experience with the intention of illuminating the universal quality of that action, producing delight through instruction."[1] This definition is quite broad, but Kreiner elaborates on what it takes to be considered art; the work must be created with some degree of skill and imagination.[2] The amount of these two values can vary, but must both be included. Kreiner goes on to give some more defining points that I found to be helpful in defining art; art can be a political weapon, art is a “moral vehicle”, and art imitates life.[3] One thing that stuck with me is Aristotle’s definition of art, which Kreiner also included in her text, “for Aristotle, art is not a way to understand a higher universal reality but a way for one to understand the human condition."[4] Photography has succeeded in doing this- imitating the human experience- photography allows people to see life through many different lenses.
The photograph I have chosen is a simple image; an old broom leans against the outside wall of Talbot’s Lacock Abbey, with an open door directly behind the broom. The photo is a moment of life, there is the presence of people in the door being ajar and the broom being placed just so. Was someone just using this broom? Did they go inside to take a break from their outdoor duties? During our class discussion, I made a connection with this photograph to Disney’s Cinderella film; one could say that there is a mystical quality of this photo, similar to the magic that Disney’s animators capture so well. I can imagine a bustling housemaid coming and going through this door or a young stable boy following commands shouted from the main house. Beyond the door, it is quite dark, and it is difficult to see the inside of the building aside from a window on the far wall. In the textbook, Larry Schaaf draws on the conclusion that the image The Open door symbolizes the contrast between light and dark, life and death.[5] I’ve interpreted this as in life there is work (which is shown by the broom) and with death, there is the unknown (represented by the complete darkness of the house). There is depth to this photograph that takes you far beyond a broom and a doorway.
In defense of my position, I will use The Open Door to show that even at its start, photographs were taken with forethought, skill, and imagination. Photographers might not have used the same training and techniques as painters and sculptures, but there is intention used to determine where the camera was to be placed, what direction the image was to be taken from, and so on. More so, the subject(s) that was to be immortalized was predetermined; even impulsive, messy, blurry, and less planned and photographs required a moment of thought before the image was taken. I’ll make a connection to photos taken today, it is not uncommon to see hastily taken images with awkward angles and poor lighting, they may not be the best in quality but that reckless lack of style has become a style in itself. In the moments before the photo was taken, the photographer came to the realization that the sight before them was worthy of a picture. Painters and sculptors may take months or years to create their art, but it all starts just like a hastily taken photograph- with that one moment of realization that this certain thing needs to be captured forever. On occasion, I will go out for a walk and come across a particular flower that captures my attention. I might snap an image of that flower, but before that moment, I had no intention or expectation to come across such a subject. Does this photograph count as art even though it took two seconds of planning, one second for execution, and the aid of digital technology? I say yes. After making the decision to take the photograph, I might mess around with the angles or rearrange the scene to my liking. I am using my skill and imagination to make this photograph, thus defining it as art. My work may not be exceptional, but it is a little lens through which another person may view my own life.
Our textbook and the journal The Science of Photography both explain in detail the chemical process and developmental timeline of photography in the early 1800s. "Photography is divided into two divisions: (1) the study of the light-sensitive substance itself and the changes which it undergoes in its transformation into an image; (2) the properties of that image when obtained and their relation to the original distribution of light and shade by which the image was produced."[6] Because of its chemical and technological components, many critics, including Pennell, regard photography as a product of science and not an artistic creation. Pennell wrote, “The art of the photographer is to make his photographs as much like something that they are not as he can."[7] To his point, photography can be a type of exact replication of the real world, but are paintings and sculptures not? To me, it sounds like Pennell only accepts art that fogs reality, as if realistic images serve no other purpose except scientific documentation. I feel that Talbot and Daguerre’s works prove Pennell wrong, they manipulated the reality that they chose to capture with photography, making their work more than just a scientific replication of reality. This thinking even fits into Greek philosopher Plato’s definition of art, “an imitation of an imitation”- a copy of real life.[8]
To this day, photography is still valued below other art mediums. I can imagine that the longer creation time is the biggest factor of price. A photo is cheap because it takes minutes (or seconds today) to create, but other mediums of art can take weeks or even years to complete. Those who commission painted or sculpted art pay higher amounts of money to cover the cost of the artist’s food, housing, and labor during the creation process. Because of the technology that allows photographers to quickly create images, photographers have been deemed “lazy”. So prints and copies of original photography are not given the same monetary or artistic value as paintings- despite the needed skill and imagination to take said photographs. I would like to interject here the price it takes to have professional photography done in today’s time. For a 1-hour session, the price can range from $50-400 depending on the skill level of the photographer and the type of event being photographed (this price also does not include the cost of printing and editing each photo). This concept, for me, confirms my stance in the argument that photography is indeed art. It takes a certain level of skill to create complex and unique images, knowing how to pose the subject, angle the camera, and manipulate the lighting all takes practice- a staple in art-making.
The argument that photography is no more than science is perpetuated by people like Joseph Pennell who claimed in his book that photographs did not require the training and skill that other art forms did. Additionally, he claimed that photographers simply rely on technology to create the output, they have no impact on the outcome themselves, and they can only guess how the image will look in the end. As mentioned before, this labeled photography as lazy and unintentionally done.[9] Pennell also wrote “photographers throw out tradition whereas artists conserve them”, this ties into the science aspect of photography.[10] As the years progressed, so did the methods of capturing images permanently. This technological innovation challenged the "traditions of painting", using simple oils and pigments on a canvas surface, the very same process that had been used for hundreds of years prior.[11] This sequence of scientific developments was not organic or honest enough for art critics of the Victorian era.
As a photographer myself, I can appreciate the science behind each photograph. One could even say that the art of making photography is a science by itself. But I recognize photography as another art form, one that deserves the same praise and recognition as paintings and sculptures. I can understand the discourse and difference between photography and other art forms, and though the processes may be quite different, the end result is still a reflection of the human experience. I challenge that photography can be both a science and an art form interchangeably.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 7. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[2] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 8. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[3] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 8. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[4] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 9. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[5] Mary Warner Marien. "Photography: a Cultural History." London, England: Laurence King Publishing ltd (2011): 28.
[6] C. E. Kenneth Mees. "The Science of Photography." The Scientific Monthly 32, no. 5 (1931):408. Accessed February 22, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/14955.
[7] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 212.
[8] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner. "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993): 8. Accessed Feburary 20, 2021. doi:10.2307/3193392.
[9] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 212.
[10] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 212.
[11] Joseph Pennell. "Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg. New York: Simon And Schuster (1981): 211.