Perhaps a better title for this post would be "Can Photography Be Art?" since it's obvious not all photography is art. But I won't keep you in suspense, in my opinion, photography cannot be art...although my thoughts on this were recently tested.
For anything to be art, I think there must be an act of creation involved. It is this act of creation that I believe is missing from all photography, thus rendering its consideration as art, impossible.
Photography does share some characteristics with art...primarily painting. These include perspective, angle of view, use of color or lack of color for effect and subject placement within the space (frame). Also, photography can elicit the same reactions as from viewers of art such as joy, wonder, sadness, fear, disgust and revelation. But, in my opinion, these are not sufficient to make up for the lack of an act of creation which is required for something to be art.
Note that I do not believe every painting or sculpture is art either. Much of what passes for art is what I refer to as "decor". It is created and purchased primarily to serve as a nice accoutrement to the overall design of a space such as a living room. The goal is for these pieces to bring a cohesive aesthetic and color palette with non-art items such as sofas, end tables, lamps and area rugs, so as to bring about a "look" which is pleasing to exist within. This is not an artistic endeavor. This is a design effort. It may be nice and we may like it, so there is nothing wrong with it, I just don't think most decor is art.
I said at the beginning of this that my thoughts on this were recently tested and here are the details on that. I watched an interview with a photographer named Peter Dusek. Mr Dusek's photographs are, to me, extraordinary and a couple of the photos shown in the video stuck me in a very strong manner as a great painting might. Also, he approaches photography much as a painter. After watching the interview I thought that perhaps I had been wrong about photography...perhaps it could be art. But after thinking about it for a couple of weeks, I came back to my original belief. My reaction to the photographs was because they resembled great paintings of the subject matter. But the photographs are a literal recording of the subject matter, not a creation that is to portray the subject matter in a particular way as the painter chooses. And that is why they are not art. Photographs, no matter the subject and no matter the skill involved, are recordings of a brief (usually far less than 1 second) moment in time. Recording is not creating.
I do not enjoy photography any less because I do not believe it is art. As I said, it can elicit the same emotional response in me as art and I think it has value on its own, apart from art. Photographers, like artists, want to develop their skills so as to be better practitioners of their craft. Whether it is art or not is, in the end, unimportant. It can be valuable. It can inspire. That is enough.
The Guitar Kid 6/1/2025