A photograph vs. a painting, where is the line drawn? Is there a line? Should there be a line? The line I’m referring to is the one of acceptance of the creation as art. What is art and what is not, wikipedia defines art as; Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. This would make art, any kind of art a personal decision of the viewer. Art, like beauty, love and most all deep emotions is in the eye of the beholder. So would it be safe to say we are all art experts or nobody is an art expert.
This topic came to my attention last week after working up an image and posting it on my facebook page. It received some wonderful responses as I was rather pleased with it myself. It happened to be and image that was taken back in 2008 and at the time I was not able through my own limited processing experience or software at the time to produce and exceptable finished image. More than likely the first is the case. A few days ago I mentioned this to a non-photographer person very close to me who explained this may be one of their favorite photos of mine. I explained it was an image from 3 years back and I when I revisited it recently was able to apply new processing skills to obtain this result. They seemed rather surprised as if, what’s the big deal with this “processing” stuff. I explained it was actually 2 separate exposures of the same scene, one for the foreground and one for the brighter skies and how they were blended together to create a final image, something that is fairly straight forward to most photographers of the digital age. Their response more than surprised me, which was, “oh so it’s not real huh”? Somewhat shocked my only immediate response was, “it’s as real as any other photograph you see, why would you say that”? They kinda chuckled and replied “I don’t know”. Of course I had to go on then trying to justify the legitimacy of this photograph. Why was I doing that? Has photography gotten to the point of needing to be justified as to why or how an image was created. Could you imagine asking Van Gogh why did you paint Starry Night or, is that sky real?
© Brad Mangas
I know photography minded people see a photograph in a different way than the general public. I don’t go out to take pictures for anyone but myself that is completely true but, I want others to enjoy them as well. I want to share and connect with others a part of my believes and emotions through a photograph. This did happen with many people who viewed the image but when a technique used to create it was mentioned all of a sudden there was a complete disconnect.
There is no answer in this post only questions and an attempt to understand possibly an alternate view point. I’m not sure of the need to understand why other may interpret a photograph in a specific way but it does raise my curiosity. The need to relate to our fellow humans obviously does not exists only through art but being a major focus of ones life the need to connect in such a way art does becomes a big part.
This is nothing new, the debate over creation of art, what is art and the tools used to create art will continue until humans are no more. But back to my initial question, is a painting of a fictitious scene that obviously is not real and does not exists anywhere in the world given a free pass as art compared to a photograph that has been somehow created to depict an actual place? I can’t seem to be able to get my mind around that.
Everyone has a camera with them nowadays so I’m thinking everyone is not only a photographer but artist as well. I guess I just take pictures and make up stuff.
Ah, the age old comparison … photography vs. painting. The debate never ends does it Brad? It seems that nature photographers in particular will always be burdened by the preconception that they are not true artists. In certain circles the use of technology somehow diminishes the credibility of individual artistic vision and expression.
Your friend has the same misconception held by so many others that photography, of all genres, must represent reality and the images made may not be altered, modified or manipulated in any way. While this standard may have important implications for photojournalist and editorial endeavors, reality has no application to other forms of photography.
Ask your friend if he/she accepts only plein-air paintings as having artistic merit since they are attempts at recreating reality to the best of the artist’s ability or whether impressionistic paintings are somehow less worthy because the artist didn’t make an attempt to recreate the scene exactly as it was experienced?
The technology at our disposal today if anything moves photographic artists even closer to our painting counterparts because now we have the tools to optimize the scenes we capture in camera to fit our individual artistic tastes and vision.
One final thought. Your work is art … don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
The battle never ends does it Wayne. It’s something I believe we all get somewhat use to but when mentioned still surprises me to the point of needing to jump into an explanation. I like your mention of En plein air paintings a very valid point.
Thanks for the comment Wayne.
No offense to your friend, Brad, but their response about the photo is based on a lack of knowledge of photography and understanding about art in general. Most knowledgeable people know that this is not a subject up for debate anymore and don’t concern themselves with opinions based on misinformation or bias. That said, there does seems to be a lot of misinformed folks out there and it’s a long and difficult road to change public perception. You handled the situation well.
The photo is stunning, no matter how many exposures it took to get there.
There is undoubtedly a lack of knowledge when it comes to photography based on bias when it comes to the “creative” process. In my years of experiencing this I can see a slow trend towards acceptance possibly “because” everyone owns a camera now. Could it be that they are slowing finding out there is more to it than just point and shoot. I tried to handle the situation best I could without seeming overly zealous which did seem to turn out OK.
Thanks for the comment Ken.
That’s not an unusual or unexpected response these days. Something we learn to live with and accept. I’ve also come to accept some viewers will like my images and others will dislike them. As for the question, I see your work as art, so bring it on, Brad! I want to see your art.