35. Photography as an Art Form

Notes for this lesson come from a video lecture by Martin Osner.

Defining Fine Art Photography

There is no way to define exactly what is or isn't "fine art" photography, because the definition of all fine art is debatable. We know it can't all be art, because the same photographic process that creates "fine art" is also used at the DMV and on your passport, not to mention medical evidence in criminal trials. 

The most we can hope for is some general consensus, and we get this from institutions like museums, universities, and galleries. The definition they give is rather inclusive. They accept a wide variety of photographic media, techniques and approaches. Martin Osner, who teaches fine art photography and runs a gallery, explains his definition (I'm paraphrasing a bit here):

"Fine art photography is imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content that expresses important ideas or feelings which represent the photographer's vision as artist, regardless of the equipment, medium, or technique used. . . . It needs artistic intent, it should be exclusive, limited in edition, bespoke, it needs archival value, and it should be available in galleries and museums. . . . ultimately it's up to the public what is or isn't fine art photography, it's a question of what they're willing to pay."

Martin praises cameras for their versatility - one can take realistic images, or soften the focus to create impressions, or create double exposures in the camera to create expressionism, or one can make completely abstract images. He also makes a distinction between "fine art" photos that are personal, expressive, and make a statement, versus the more impersonal, safer "artistic" photography that is more corporate, often found in hotels and offices, but has less to say.

So, if all the institutions are so inclusive, what's the problem? Martin Osner says the problem is public perception. People reject photography as a fine art when they think it's too easy, especially with digital photography, available on smart phones. It's so accessible and simple, anyone can do it, and everyone does. It's seen as less expressive than other art. Powerful tools like Photoshop and Lightroom are seen as cheating - most contests forbid contestants from using AI editing tools that these programs have. And then, most people feel an artwork should be a one-of-a-kind original. With photography you can make endless copies, all just as good as the first. Any limited edition has to be self-imposed. There's also a fear that photographic prints may fade over time, and certainly some printing processes do fade.

All this keeps a lot of photography out of galleries, So how do you get a photo into one? Martin Osner lists a few ways: Your work can record a "decisive moment" that catches people's eye. You can earn recognition in contests. You can get a lucky break from a curator, gallery, or talent scout. You can be in the right place at the right time to record a historic moment. You can put up your art for auction. Or, if you're already a celebrity, like Jeff Bridges or Brad Pitt, it's much easier to get into galleries.

Martin Osner gives this advice for people who want to become fine art photographers. He says, far too often, photographers will discuss equipment - what lens, what camera, filters, etc. Then they might talk about the right subject, location, camera settings, etc. But, when they worry about all this, and still get frustrated with the results, there's a reason for this. To be a fine artist you have to stop thinking like a photographer, and begin creating like a fine artist. Start with an idea, be imprecise, at least at first. Allow your work to be rough and textural, allow the colors to exaggerate, incorporate surreal and abstract elements, create a story, even if it's fiction. One problem with photography is that people believe in them. Make something fanciful that couldn't be real.

Martin Osner explains that there's no one process that makes a photograph "fine art". One of the most expensive photos ever sold at auction was Rhein II by Andreas Gursky, earning over $4.3 million,

Rhein II, by Andreas Gursky, 1999

even though it was just a C-Type print, that will fade in 40 years or so. And Gursky also used Photoshop in this image to remove pedestrians and buildings in the distance. So, you can do the same and still call yourself a "fine art" photographer. But Osner doesn't recommend it. He claims there are techniques, such as encaustic, black powder transferring, and hand embellishing, which Photoshop can't reproduce, not perfectly - not yet. He says the filters found on Photoshop are obvious, once you know them. You can see exactly what someone has done, and how, and this removes some of the mystery and impact of the work.

How did photography change art? Did it change the purpose of painting?

The development of photography created a debate on the nature and meaning of art. Photography was not originally seen as art, although some early practitioners had been educated as artists and painters. The idea that a machine could produce art independent of man was counter to art’s definition as original, personal expression. 

Instead, photography was viewed as a science, an opinion that still carries weight today. Many scientists continue to use photographs to document the processes and results of their experiments. If a photo was a product of science, then it was the antithesis of art. Art was everything that a photo was not. You can see how this attitude led to the swift demise of Realist painting. 

Impressionism was the perfect response to photography. It could claim superiority for its use of color and dismissal of detailed rendering, even as it borrowed compositional ideas from photography: cropping figures and objects, showing only small bits of larger buildings, etc. Art’s further progression towards abstraction in the 20^th century can be seen as a direct response to photography. I even remember an art professor asking me, “What’s the point of copying a photo, if the camera can do it just as well, and faster?” So, the changing nature, goals, and definitions of modern art can all be seen as a quest to remain relevant as photography began to supplant many of art’s original goals: to document history, to create accurate portraits, to tell the news and illustrate stories, etc.

Objectivity versus Subjectivity, Art versus Journalism

Part of the debate over whether photography is art has to do with the idea of it being honest and unbiased. When a camera takes a photo it makes no judgments as to what matters and what doesn’t. It doesn’t know what it’s looking at, it doesn’t care what it’s looking at. Now, a good photographer does know and care what she's looking at, and does make judgments, but some would say she's still working within a machine that is too confining in what it can do. Whether or not the resulting image looks good has as a certain amount of luck involved, regardless of the the photographer – who is lucky to be in the right place at the right time (she might say it's not luck, and she'd be right, but still, you can't control nature, you can only wait patiently for things to align). That’s what we assume about any photograph we see, because it looks honest, it looks untouched, and it looks so damned accurate, it has to be the truth, right?

Well, not really. Photos have been doctored since the technology began. Photo manipulation has only gotten better and more sophisticated over time, especially with the advent of computers and Photoshop. Every tool in Photoshop is based on a real-world tool originally used in a dark room. But, even before a photo is doctored, it’s still subjective to a degree, because the photographer chooses what to take a picture of, from what angle to look, what to include and exclude, what to focus on and what not to. Photos copy reality, but not all of it, only what the person behind the camera cares about, or is capable of experiencing.

This idea of crafting a photo, of imbuing it with meaning and making it special through the careful application of dark room techniques and manipulation has been the standard argument for labelling a photo a work of art, and demanding high prices, for the last century. Under this definition, a photo is only an artwork if the photographer produces the image herself in a dark room, using the highest level of quality techniques and tricks to get it exactly how she wants, and then giving it her stamp of approval by signing it. So, taking the photo isn’t enough. You can’t just send it off to a lab.

There are those who still question whether a photograph meeting all these standards is art. I talk about it more in my lesson on defining art.