Photography and its Intention as an Art Form
It is difficult to provide an exact definition of art, as art is unique to each person. Generally speaking however, art can be recognized as an expression of emotion, a creative outlet that causes people to feel something. Viewers may not always understand or like a particular piece of art, but it is not quite up to them to decide whether or not it is art, it is up to the creator. That’s not to say that anything can be called art simply because a person feels like it. Art requires careful thought and consideration. In Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner’s journal article, “Toward a Definition of Art,” the author suggests a definition of art as being “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] Photography is therefore an art form, not a science, as the photographer has the power to evoke a feeling through their work. With a vision in mind, they formulate an idea of how to go about capturing and conveying that vision through a scene. Photography’s quick and convenient functionality led many people to reject it as an art when it first originated in the 1800s. Some forms of art, like painting, do require more thought, attention, and time, but others may not. As there is no definite or correct way to create a work, these factors should not always constitute whether or not something is art, rather, the intention of the creator should.
Victorian ideals placed heavy emphasis on length of time and proper training when determining if something was art. They held much respect for painters and the strenuous efforts and dedication involved in painting; they thought that to be an artist, one must devote their entire life to it. In his excerpt, “Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?”, Joseph Pennell discusses such Victorian beliefs that painters are more esteemed, legitimate artists than photographers are. Pennell compares the artistic processes of the painter and the photographer, “What does the painter do? He either sits down in front of his subject--a landscape, let us suppose--makes a careful study of it with his unaided hands, which is he able to do because he had had a certain training and has the power to do it--a power in which the photographer is totally deficient…”[2] Pennell places heavy appreciation and praise on the painter while belittling the photographer. This is representative of how most Victorian people disapproved of photography as an art form because they believed it to be too easy and lacking in skill and personal touch. “It is the time left over from his serious work in life that this photographer gives to his “art”. Photography is his amusement, his relaxation,”[3] says Pennell. Pennell continues to express his disdain for photographers by speaking of their work as if it were a trivial side hobby that anyone may pick up to occupy themselves during their free time. While Pennell is completely disregarding that many do in fact devote their lives to photography the same way a painter does to his paintings, those who do photography on the side are just as valid as those who aim to be professional photographers. In Jacob Deschin’s journal article, “Photography as Art,” the author defines an artist as “an individual of uncommon sensibility, one responsive to the nuances of mood, substance and situation he encounters in the world around him, one who penetrates surface appearances and values to the meanings that lie below and even beyond the subject itself.”[4] A photographer transcends the typically mundane nature of the real world by choosing to capture it in a certain way. Therefore, someone who uses photography to bring a vision to life through their own creative thought process is in fact an artist. Art is not exclusive to those who studied it or made a career out of it. Photographers who capture the world may deem it as art if they are attempting to project something they find beautiful or meaningful, or are making a statement.
Although not all photographs require the same amount of time and work involved, it is often overlooked that many photographers must go through the trouble of building their scene in order to portray their artistic vision. Sandy Skoglund’s photograph Revenge of the Goldfish, 1981 is an ideal example of this. Skoglund’s photograph depicts a monochrome blue bedroom, a boy sitting on a bed while a woman sleeps, and bright orange goldfish swimming about. Skoglund created a room-size installation and scattered sculpted goldfish throughout the unusual, dreamlike scene.[5] Skoglund had to know exactly how she wanted the photograph to look like before she created it; she had to know exactly what colors to use and how they would go together, details of how objects in the room would be displayed, and what subjects would be in the room, what emotions they would express, and how they would interact with each other. Deschin expands on the significance of this process:
“...the photographer must exercise the element of selection far more specifically than the painter. He cannot recall from memory as the painter can, a particular lighting, subject angle, a gesture, movement, expression, a desirable disposition of subject elements. They must be present in front of his camera. Thus, if the lighting is not right, he comes back when it is; if the mood is not appropriate, he waits for change; if the situation lacks significance, he waits until something happens to give it depth and meaning.”[6]
Deschin supports the claim that photography can be just as intricate, if not at times more, than painting; it can be quite tedious to get the photo right. Perhaps during the Victorian era, photographers were merely starting out and were not yet able to thoroughly explore or appreciate the many possibilities of the practice, like building scenes. In modern day however, people tend to neglect how much effort goes into making a professional photo like Revenge of the Goldfish because of how widespread photography has become. While it is wonderful that most anyone has the means to do photography through built-in phone cameras, this somewhat reduces uniqueness. Photographs are no longer “one of a kind,” as they can be shared around with others or found online easily; the ability to easily obtain photographs for free reduces their monetary value and recognition.
Photography is indeed an art form, if not solely from the fact that it inspires creativity and passion. Since many people did not wish to consider photography an art, the alternative has been to consider it a science because of its technical process. Deschin counters this by saying, “...the familiar distinction is made that photography is mechanical because a mechanical instrument is the medium involved. This ignores entirely the fact that back of the instrument, the camera, is a human intelligence, reacting, like the artist’s, to the subject material at hand. The physical result is different, of course, but the depth of perceptivity need not be.”[7] There being a person behind the camera who is manipulating their surroundings and utilizing their ideas in an attempt to create should be proof enough that photography is an art form. The means by which a person chooses to make their art is relatively insignificant. According to Kreiner, “A problem which remains with the definition is the matter of taste and appreciation, which is why art and aesthetics must remain separate.”[8] Pennell, his fellow Victorians, and perhaps even some people in modern day firmly believe that art has to uphold their standards in order to be recognizable or good. This is not true, as art is completely subjective. What is not subjective, however, is the attempt and intention to make art. Whether or not an individual’s work is well-liked, what matters most is that they are trying to say something through their creation.
[1] Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner, "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993), 7.
[2]"Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" in Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg (New York: Simon And Schuster, 1981), 211.
[3]"Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?" in Photography In Print: Writings from 1816 to the Present, ed. Vicki Goldberg (New York: Simon And Schuster, 1981), 210 - 211.
[4]Jacob Deschin, "Photography as Art." Art Education 13, no. 6 (1960), 7.
[5]Mary Warner Marien, Photography: a Cultural History. 4th ed. (London: Laurence King Publishing ltd, 2014), 455.
[6]Jacob Deschin, "Photography as Art." Art Education 13, no. 6 (1960), 8.
[7]Jacob Deschin, "Photography as Art." Art Education 13, no. 6 (1960), 7.
[8]Leslie Elizabeth Kreiner, "Toward a Definition of Art." Art Education 46, no. 3 (1993), 10.