This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/theopendoor.png 2021-02-15T23:06:29+00:00 William Henry Fox Talbot’s The Open Door and the Controversy of Defining Art 21 by Sam Webster plain 2021-03-15T19:55:39+00:00

  
              The Open Door by William Henry Fox Talbot [1] is intriguing because of the composition of the photograph. This photo was taken in 1844, and was included in Talbot’s book “The Pencil of Nature,” which was a collection of his investigative work on the different applications of photography. This photograph sparked many controversial discussions about photography as a medium of art. While defining art remains arbitrary and subjective, the intent and meaning of a photograph can be analyzed to determine whether it is art.
  
              The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word, art, as, “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation.” [2] This definition isn’t necessarily applicable to all types of art or artists. The definition of art is constantly evolving due to the immense new forms and mediums that arise with advancements of new technology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy analyzes the controversy surrounding whether art can be defined or not. [3] There are no definite characteristics that can be used to define art. “Conventionalist definitions deny that art has essential connection to aesthetic properties, or to formal properties, or to expressive properties, or to any type of property taken by traditional definitions to be essential to art.” [4] This explanation gives a broad meaning to the necessary characteristics of art. The only plausible way to define whether something is art or not is examining the intention of the piece. Historical philosopher Kant defines art as, “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication.” [5] Kant’s definition has various elements and focuses on the intent of the artist rather than the traditional characteristics.
  
              As previously mentioned and supported by Kant, the intention of the artist gives the photograph meaning and provokes a conversation about the subject matter. Talbot’s intent in The Open Door was to “emulate seventeenth century Dutch painting scenes from everyday life,” which was “an example ‘of the early beginnings of a new art.’” [6] The photo's intention is clear, and there are elements that appear to be presented to make the viewer feel a certain way. Talbot utilizes the high contrast of the light from indoor to outdoor, creating an image that intrigues the viewer to keep them interested. His use of everyday objects helps to portray a sense of realism. The door is opened enough to let the viewer see a glimpse of the inviting inside. Light shines through the window in the background, giving a sense of daylight and openness. The broom seems carefully placed by the door with the intention of being captured in the photograph. The elements and composition feels intentional. Due to these effective components, the viewer becomes absorbed in a different time by this mystical scene.
  
              When photography became accessible to more people in the nineteenth century, conversations arose about whether this medium was a form of art. Photography emerged into society during the Victorian era, when art focused on romanticizing the high society of England during Queen Victoria’s reign. Creating art such as paintings and sculptures gave an artist the ability to exaggerate and romanticize real life situations. Photography had the ability to show the reality of the way people lived and captured glimpses of everyday life. This ideology of Victorian art diminished the importance of photography. Artists during this era had no interest in capturing the reality around them, as they were more focused on romanticizing the material world. Photographs and paintings may “say different things, one as profound as the other. Because of the characteristics of the medium involved, one may even make a statement not possible to the other.” [7] During this era, the statements that were able to be made by the photograph were not in demand by the art world.
  
              George Eastman was the inventor of the first amateur camera, the Kodak #1, in 1888. He was able to simplify the processing of film for the consumer, and make “photography accessible to millions of casual amateurs with no particular professional training, technical expertise, or aesthetic credentials,” coining the phrase, “You press the button, we do the rest.” [8] This gave inexperienced people the ability to play with photography and create their own works of expression. Similarly, modern forms of art, such as video and digital image editing, have grown exponentially in the twenty-first century.  Due to the invention of smartphones, many people have a camera less than a reach away and are able to edit their content all on the same device. With the democratization of photography, came an access of people creating bodies of work and documenting their lives. Photography has the ability to capture truth and reality, while painting and sculpting takes hours to attempt to produce the real scene or object. Even after these long hours, the truth is nearly impossible to reproduce and mastered by few. In Joseph Pennell’s excerpt, “Is Photography Among the Fine Arts?” he writes, “No wonder he laughs at the poor artist who humbly toil to create beauty, which a camera manufactures for him at once.” [9] This gives insight to the monetary value of photographs, which has remained less than paintings and sculptures for a variety of reasons.
  
              There are a few biases that affect these circumstances. The main inclinations are the value of time and practiced skill, the intentions of making art exclusive and the commodification of art. The demand is not as high for photographs because of the accessibility to a camera and the access of images that are created on a daily basis. Anyone can take a decent photograph, whereas painting and sculpting are skills that take hours and hours of practice to master. Paintings and sculptures cannot be recreated in their entirety, while photographs can be reprinted as many times as necessary with the use of a negative or a digital image. Photographs nowadays are instant, and do not require much time. Whereas, paintings and sculptures require a dedication of time and experience to the skill to be regarded as art. In addition, the art world enjoys keeping art an exclusive phenomenon for prestige and commodification. Art buyers want to purchase valuable pieces that are one of a kind. For this reason, and due to the priceless value of time, photographs are not as expensive as paintings or sculptures. 
  
              There are many definitions of art and the debate is constantly evolving. The intention of an artist’s creation is the key characteristic that can be analyzed to define something as art. Anyone can create a photograph, but the photographer's intent speaks volumes to the image produced. Although photographs can be reproduced and don’t require hours of dedication, their abundance and simplicity brings much more democracy to the art world.