7/30/2019 Photography as a Fine Art by Matthew Smeal

1/2

Photography as a Fine Artby Matthew Smeal

Compared to most art forms, photography is a relative newcomer. Having

been around for less than 200 years, its place in the art world is still beingestablished. Interestingly, there have been many arguments against

photography being considered art, one of which is that the camera is a

'machine'. However, one must ask if a camera is any more a machine than

a musician's instrument, a sculptor's chisel or a painter's brush?

Another argument is that because of the nature of photography, endless

prints can be made from the one negative. While true, it is for this reason

that many photographers will produce their work as limited editions just

as screen-printers, etchers and wood-block artists will. Somephotographers have even been known to destroy their negatives after they

have completed printing the edition. However, the ability toproduce

numerous prints is usually considered part of photography's uniqueness.

Historically, many photographers themselves once considered

photography a lesserart form. Called 'Pictorialists' these photographers

produced work using soft focus, and often, poor quality, lenses hoping

their work would look like Impressionist paintings. Although the

Pictorialists won a small battle in having photography recognised andgiven wall space, they certainly didn't help win the war of photography

being recognised purely on its own artistic merits.

There is a great quote that states: "There is no art, only artists." Very true

words, as there are many great artists who use photography as their

chosen medium. It would be very hard for people to argue that the

landscape and nature work of Ansel Adams; the natural world, nudes and

still life's of Edward Weston; the abstract forms and textures of Brett

Weston and the compositions of Paul Strand are not art.

[]

The modern-day ease of photography has also led to a lot of very poor

photographic work being passed off as art. Automated cameras have also

lent considerable weight to the argument that it's the camera doing the

work, not the so-called artist. It is little wonder that many gallery owners

are reluctant to give wall space to photographs. It must be remembered

that the camera doesn't make a good photographer any more than a

piano makes a good pianist or a brush makes a good painter. An artist isan artist no matter what the medium.

7/30/2019 Photography as a Fine Art by Matthew Smeal

2/2

Where Photography Becomes Art

what constitutes a fine art photograph would be quality: quality in

composition, quality in the negative and quality in the print. EdwardWeston once said that, "composition is the best way of seeing."

[..]

How a Fine Art Photographer Prints

Ansel Adams was fond of saying that the negative is like a musician's

score and the print is like theirperformance. Good photographers will

know how to do both very well: photograph to produce good negatives

and then make an expressive print that conveys what they saw and felt atthe time ofexposure.

A photographer will go through a few stages before arriving at the fine

print. [] All affect the look of the final print and it is the experience of

the photographer to know how best to pull all these together to produce a

print worthy of being called 'art'.

1) Write two argument against

photography as a form of fine art

2) What constitutes a fine art

photograph according to the text?

3) What is your opinion? What do

you think makes a photograph

worthy: the photographer, thecamera or both?