Share your best photos with thousands of PAC readers!

Cameras Can Be Another Artistic Tool

by Anthony

I definitely think it would be a big loss if photos suddenly disappeared from art galleries and exhibitions. I don't think photographs could be confined just to places like history books and used only to record facts.

People who aren't into photography sometimes say that paintings etc. are 'imagined' and come from the inspiration of the artist, while photos just come about when people 'see' something that looks nice/interesting.

But 2 people shooting the same subject come up with wildly different images - creative and interesting in their own way. How is that not down to personal imagination, inspiration and vision?! No-one sees things in the same way, and it doesn't really matter a whole lot what tools are used to put across that unique view!

I guess I think fine art photography has to be original, interesting and technically well executed. That would be my pretty weak definition of fine art photography! I like the way the main article says that photography's versatility and use in different fields is good - confusion is good!

Comments for Cameras Can Be Another Artistic Tool

Average Rating starstarstarstarstar

Click here to add your own comments

Cameras and art
by: Terry

I agree. The camera is just as valid as an artistic tool as the paint brush, not to mention the computer! And what a miriad of creative possibilities has been unleashed with Photoshop. It has certainly rekindled my love of photography which had seriously waned. Everything I did looked (to me) like a visual cliche as I had either done it or seen it before and found it difficult to get a fresh approach from a creative point of view.

A good image is a good image regardless of how it is created. The degree of difficulty is not necessarily a factor. I have spent hours and hours on some images only to end up with them in the bin after I had gotten over my emotional attachment to the subject and/or the experience of "the moment" and realised how difficult, and sometimes impossible, it can be to effectively re-create that in the image. Creating "Art" is obviously a very subjective experience but one has to be objective enough to try and see/experience the result through the eyes of others before assigning it to the gallery or the gurgler(toilet).

So.....Photography, per se, in not art, - art is created by people, not cameras or paint brushes.

photography is flexible
by: Anonymous

I agree about photography being flexible. It annoys me when people are dismissive of it just because it is a tool for science, history etc too. No point in having a 1 dimensional view of it.

Nice article!
by: Anonymous

Great points! It made me think how bad it would be if everyone suddenly decided to remove photography from the arts and photos were suddenly absent from art galleries. I think lots of photos have shaped the way we see the world - and imagine it.

2 people see the same thing differently - yes - but the question is, does the camera allow them to do that vision justice and create something from their imagination? I guess it comes down to everyone's subjective experience of photos. In my view they can definitely show the photographer's inner feelings and impressions powerfully. So yep - it's art!

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Is Photography an Art?.