Photography: Science or Art?
Painting, like the other mediums discussed earlier, can come in so many forms. For instance, both a finger painting of a butterfly by a six-year-old and a realistic oil-painting such as Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa are undoubtedly both paintings. One would most likely be displayed on a refrigerator door for a few months, while the other attracts millions of viewers a year from around the world and is perhaps the most recognizable painting in the world. In their most basic forms, both were created in the same fashion of applying paint to a surface. Is either one more art than the other? In both cases, the artist came up with a concept in their head, and then translated that idea onto the paper to the best of their means. So, what then separates the two paintings?
Well one key distinction that could be made is the amount of time that was spent on each work. A fingerpainting by a child is usually completed when they become bored of the activity, most likely within an hour. In the case of master painters such as Da Vinci, paintings could take upwards of 5 years, sometimes a lifetime. But this is only one measurement of the time which goes into a painting, because to reach a level of realism such as seen in The Mona Lisa a painter needs to become a master of their craft, a talent which essentially takes a lifetime to secure. Yet a child can create a fairly recognizable, yet unrealistic depiction of a butterfly with no practice. So then perhaps the difference exists in the accuracy of their portrayal of their subject?
Well, this also would be a fairly inaccurate assumption. Some of the most famed artists of the twentieth century have created paintings which sought to represent nothing. Painters such as Pollock or Rothko paint without a form, seeking instead to create meaning without form in their works. Paintings by both these artists have been among some of the most expensive ever sold, and are undoubtedly regarded as art. This brings us to the harsh reality, and that is that there really is no defining factor which makes art what it is beyond the artists intention to create art. Despite sharing no similarities in method of production, value, amount of training and preparatory work, it is completely untrue to say that any painting by a master painter hung up in a fancy museum is any more of an art piece than any fingerpainting by a child. The intention of the artist to create an image on the canvas, and this execution of is all that is required for a work to be considered art. What then is photography considered?
Unlike painting, photography allows the user to create imagery without even touching the canvas. Not only do they create an image without getting their hands dirty with paint, but they also make an image more realistic than even the most talented painters could ever create. In many ways the process to create a photo is scientific as a photographer needs to combine an assortment of chemicals using very specific processes which they must do using specific equipment in spaces like dark rooms designed for photography. While complex, these steps are accomplishable by anyone who can follow the instructions on how to take a photograph. This is the biggest gap between photography and painting, the automation and ease of the whole process. While both the painting kindergartener and the accomplished master painter had a physical touch and effect on their works, the photographer does no such thing. However, all three are creating imagery, and in that sense, they are doing essentially the same thing. Yet, as the practice of photography became more commonplace, many people were hesitant to buy into its artistic value. “And now, what is the training of the photographer who is noisiest in his assertion that he is an artist?... Does he give up his whole life to the study and the practice even of photography?”[1], writes Joseph Pennell, an illustrator for travel books who most likely began to feel the pressures of photography on his business upon writing this in 1897.
Pennell’s point of the amount of training holds little ground as the amount of time and effort dedicated to a work is not what makes it art as seen in the case of the child finger-painting. What makes a work art is the intention of the creator. In the case of a travel illustrator like Pennell, he is merely attempting to create realistic images of locations so that viewers can get an idea about the locations they will be visiting. Photography is a much better way of accomplishing this, as it is unbiased to the painterly hand, and can only represent an absolutely accurate image of what the photographer was seeing. In both cases, this not a very artistic process, either by the painter or the photographer, and is instead more of a process for recording the world around them. This again brings us back to the intention of the image creator, if the goal of either a painter or a photographer is to create a piece of artwork, then it is up to them whether that goal is accomplished. In the case of something like a travel illustrator or photos made to record something; such as the photo on an ID, the photo taken of an item to sell online, or photos taken by police at crime scenes, there is no artistic intention by the person taking the photo, they are merely creating a record of that subject. One photo that might be a good example of this is Robert Frank’s, U.S. 30 between Ogallala and North Platte, Nebraska, 1956.
The photo is a black and white landscape featuring a set of small houses on top of the ridge of a small field. The photo is split into two parts by a telephone pole which juts up and out of frame in the middle of the painting. Besides the pole there is mailbox which sits right up against the picture plain maybe only five feet away from the photographer, which creates a lot of depth in the image as the houses are perhaps a hundred yards away. The houses, of which there are four, are split two and two on either side of the telephone pole, and on the end of each house furthest away from the pole is another form; on the right it is a tree, and on the left it is perhaps a tractor of some kind. The picture is very artistic, as the objects are all positioned and framed very well and interestingly. As Jack Kerouac wrote in the introduction for the book this photo was published in, Frank “sucked a sad poem right out of America onto film, taking rank among the tragic poets of the world.”[2] The photo gives us a very intriguing look at a fairly simple subject, and leaves us with many questions and feelings about it, the same way a great painting or poem would. However, if the same photograph was taken by perhaps a postal worker to record where this specific mailbox was located, it really would not be artistic at all. This is why the intention is so important behind the photograph, and also behind the painting, because it really is the defining factor of the artistic process in creating a piece of art. Without it one is simply blindly creating imagery without a message or meaning, which defeats the purpose of art.