Do you think of photography as a form of art?

[thatshydork]

Some people think of photography as an art form but others disagree. What do you think?

Yes, it’s an art form

No, it’s not an art form

Not sure/different answer

[Anonymous]

For the people that say, you're just capturing what's already there and making a copy...well, then what is realism? There is an entire genre or art dedicated to that and people accept that as art. If you're going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that someone taking a paint brush and painting a single black line across a white canvas, is art, then what is the standard exactly between a and b and what is "legitimate" art.

Art to me is always something individualistic that makes a person feel some kind of way when looking at it that is meaningful or important to them. When I see Ansel Adams landscapes or Dorthea Langes images from the dust bowl area---it's story telling. The images evoke a lot of feelings for a lot of people that any old person with an iPhone would not be able to convey without a certain eye for story telling and manipulation of light and shadow and color. It's the same reason most of us can physically sing a song, but we can't sing the way many great artists do, where you stop and really listen because they've honed in on something that makes you feel something in that song.

[Twalli]

They are capturing what is there, unless it's artistic photography, which exists. Yet some are really quite amazing. I am not saying taking cellphone pictures is art, or something like that, but if you set up with a good camera with a good lens and such, it becomes art.

[genericname85]

yes it is an art form for sure. the thing is that in a time where litterally everyone is equipped with a very high quality camera at any time, what we are exposed to is rarely the "artful" fotography and mostly just snapshots. even lots of people with high end camera gear are only capabloe of snap shots. like all these street fotographers with their 20.000 bucks gear and F 0.5 Bokeh monsters only produce snapshots for the most part. the layman typically associates a picture taken with very expensive gear that has unbelievable shallow depth of field with "art", when really all it is, is an expensive picture. not an artful one.

and i think the vastly varying ethics of the use of digital tools to process a picture beyond any reasonable realistic depiction is more often not art than it is. like sure you can use a picture as a basis for your digital art, which is fine. but then it's not photography anymore. that's cgi.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Definitely. I consider all forms of subjective human expression an art form whether it's photography or dancing or conversation or creating music or creative writing or having sex.

I do think there's varying degrees of artistry. The most Artistic works as I see it with a capital "A" are those that are searching and longing to express a deeper meaning in things most take for granted.

[Dargil]

It varies. Snapshots of the Grand Canyon aren't. Back before I gave ip on film, I made ones like this. An ordinary snapshot would have done nothing. But film choice, settings and lenses made all the difference.

[MysticDevice]

I think so. Its not just taking a picture. There's angles, focus, lighting, and a whole science involved. All those factors determine what to photo is telling the viewer.

[thatshydork]

I agree! It’s kind of a scientific art, if you will.

[ArrowheadSW]

@thatshydork Exactly. Especially when you consider f-stops and shutter speeds, etc. There is a lot of science behind it.

[Miristheiss]

Sure.

There are limits of course.

If my girl says she wants to go pose nude to make some "art or pose naked for a photographer" then we've got a problem but photos can be very artistically moving.

[Phoenix98]

It certainty can be there are many pictures that when taken in the right way are very artful in how they look. While I do think it is in it's own way an art form I don't think it's in the same vein as painting or writing.

[ArrowheadSW]

Yes I definitely consider it to be an artform.

[Joshydavid25]

It definitely is an art form.. The way it captures moments, and enhances it and how you have to have a keen eye for it..

[strateguy632]

not art just pretty if chose good angle n view

[Marriedandavailable]

If anyone else carry about the anatomy, light and perspective and taking care to combine this parameters in a frame, yes we can talk about the art on photography.

[exitseven]

Yes, and black and white photography is really cool.

[Anonymous]

I think it can be both, you can take photos and have it be considered art such, I've seen some people use light and exposure to creat stunning pictures. I'd say that's art. But there are also photos that are just that photos.

A lot I think comes down to personal thoughts on the matter but I do think they can be either or.

[Sam12348]

Yes, for me it's an art even if it's a pic of nature or someone semi-nude

[Anonymous]

If you're talking about the "art" side of the fence vs the "science" side of the fence, then it's certainly a form of art.

[NathanDavis]

to me, it is... some of it, anyway

[Chelsdope0]

Yes it is a form of art lol..

[Night_Descends]

Yes, I'd agree to it.

[LavLavLuv]

Yes 😄

[Still-alive]

absolutely.

[jimmy2]

It takes talents

[Anonymous]

Yes, definitely.