I had an interesting discussion with an artist the other day. He said that photography doesn't really compare to real art e.g. painting on canvas, drawing etc.

His viewpoint is that a photo is pretty to look at, but it rarely "says" anything, and it's not a "part" of the artist that is being shown... or imbued into the artwork. Anyone in the same time/place could be able to take the same photograph. All the photographer does is take a snapshot of reality...

I disagreed. Personally I like photography more, but it has made me wonder. Most of my photo's can't be seen as very artistic, or can it. It's just basically a shot of some or other object.

So my quastion is this... does a photograph do anything except look pretty?

i'd say the artist you were speaking to is talking boolax. Any form of 'art' has it's own individual merits that quite often dont stand up to side by side comparrison with another. The old master's for the most part were just taking snapshots of reality using the tools available to them at the time - had De Vinci or Michaelangelo had access to digital photography im sure they would have used it as both were creative visionaries as opposed to plain old artists. It's wholly wrong to say photographers do not put anything of themselves into their work.

So in answer to you question - i'd say yes - a photograph can do far more than just look pretty - it's how it is perceived by the viewer. liking one more than other has nothing really to do with it - it is what it is.

He or she is full of it. Photography is art. For example three people could take pictures of say Yosemite national park, at sun set, at same the viewpoint. Out of those three 2-image t come out. Of those two images one looks bland and flat the no contrast or depth. The other is so stunning that it takes your breath away. Now while the other two are bewilder on why their photos didn’t come out well and the photographers did.
The photographer had the eye and the technique to take the photograph with the impact that he or she was looking for. That needs talent and training just as the painter does. I’ve been taking photographs from the age of 5 and 16 years of being a professional behind me, along with some 27 years of oil panting experience in classic and abstract painting.
So what this person is telling you is that Photographers like Ansel Adams and Pawller aren’t artist. If that is so why are they world-renowned and why do they hang in places like the Guggenheim, and in general make more money as an Photographic artist in general then a painter and don’t have to die to become wealthy or noticed. Most painters follow fads for example Picasso new this. The only true difference is that one is in a different medium then the another. And one captures the true essence of the subject then the other.
Also there was only paint to be used up till the last what 140 years.
To me it’s just frustration in the artist mind of how much they had to learn and practice to get it right and here comes along an artist that can do it in a click of a button. With more realism and beauty then any painter can achieve. I know several photographers that actually paint with the chemicals that they develop with. For example using a printer to print on light sensitive paper in the dark and thin exposing the print to light or running it thru a developer for an amassing effect. The image completely changes its properties.

I agree with you guys. It generally depends on the perspective of the person looking at the photograph. I guess this guys is just to obsessed with his form of art, or can't see anything except a plain photograph. When I look at a photograph, it means something to me.

personaly, i colect magazines and love the images on it.
Potography is art...indisputably.

Art is a concept, photography is a medium.

"Art" is a broad umbrella, with many kinds (such as photography, painting, etc.) under it ;-)

They are both concepts' You can create as well in photography with out digital effects as well as you can with a paint brush. They are both concept and control. The medium the aspect of how you choose to create it. As you would choose oils or acrylic, canvas or paper. Negative or digital you can create and paint in all of these,

i don't believe they are really that comparable much like the apples and oranges are. Both have their own merits. One is when you have more or less have a structure already and try to put it in it's best or worst light depending on what you want to do. The other you are given an idea and hope to give it structure. Photographs have a mood and they are set by the photographer. However, I will in part agree with your friend, it is easier to make something that tells a part of you through other mediums. I myself like both.

Have you ever seen a photographer builda set to match his amagination. As as well as the artist create from his mind to paint they are one in the same.

Art is truth calculated. It encompasses everything and is universal. The rtist is the mediator being truthful to herself and reality. There is no such thing as " bad art" as what is distasteful to one set of eyes is awesome and beholding to the next set of eyes. It is self expression that requires no language.

Photography is educating the world,displaying reality and fantasy.....inticing them to want to travel.....showing different perspectives on the world..it's so much more than just a click.....it about lighting and shading and capturing a moment at its best and holding on to it...

There are a huge number of artists who use photography as a medium - try looking at the works of
Man Ray, Cindy Sherman, & Olive Cotton for example.

Those are all great artist Mum42 Some of the ones I like that have achieved a standard are Helmut Newton an Andy Warhol which are too to just give an example, Though I do admit Warhol can be a little deviant and obscure. He is a fine example of photographers that actually paint with photography.
Those are too of about four or five ground breaking Photographic artist from the sixties and seventies that showed the world that photography can be more then just a photograph.

Agree ,with your very good explanation,Clayton.

Photography is definately art. Not only the quallity of it, but the impact and moment of the shot. Perhaps this person is right, any person at the same time and place could take the same shot, but the question is, would they?

Not all photography is art. But then not all paintings are either. Matbe what this person means is that photography in general is easier/more common than painting, therefore there are more "bad" photos than paintings; I guess I could agree with that to an extent. But photography can certainly be art.

I don’t know have you ever really looked at a Picasso. Every one calls him a genies but if you ever looked at his early paint other wise his classical work, you just realize he couldn’t get proportion down. So he went to abstract.
But I will give him and the other cubist and abstract painters did change the face of art and opened the world up to new set of ideas.

It takes a certain sense to feel and know what will be a good photo. I don't have much of a nac for it, but with anything it takes practice. Photography my not be as much of an art as painting or drawing, but it does require lots of imagination!

True so true.

According to the curator Weston Naef at a museum, photography underlays almost all the visual culture of the 20th century. He states that at his museum the exhibit recognizes once and for all that photography is no longer a stepchild of the art world.

Obiously this person you were talking to doesn't have a clue about photography and probably has never taken a picture. When I take a picture I usually make it meaningful, I give a name reflecting on what the picture is about and the feeling of the picture. That's why I have some of my pics make a story together of the Lord of the Rings journey.

I can't say that I like 'drawing art' less or more than 'photography art' (because photography is darn straight a type of art) because I like to draw too. In fact I'm in the progressive of drawing a picture that I'm going to put on this site. BUt anyway the person that you were talking to is wrong because photography is a art just as meaningful as drawing painting etc. only sometimes it takes less effort "sometimes".

I agree with the curator cited by kimcande. I would suggest as an extension to her comment that this site itself not only contains art, but is in itself a 21st century, 4D, postmodern artwork
- It has (cross)cultural meaning(s);
- it defies precise definition because it is evolving;
- it is open to subversion yet attracts all levels of contributors (not just a techno-elite) and
- it makes reference to the art styles and mores of the past.
Finally, in Crusader's original post above he says: "So my question is this... does a photograph do anything except look pretty?"... I would answer yes, because meaning is as much a responsibility of the viewer as the artist, but also comment that beauty in its own right has always been a powerful feature in art - to aid, or even be, the meaning.