Photography is an art
During the period of establishment of photography the aesthetics was prevailed with views that only a hand-made product can be considered as art. In reality image is actually obtained by using technical, physical and chemical methods, and therefore could not even qualify for such a status. And although first photographers that were moving towards artistic images, showed considerable ingenuity in composition in order to reflect reality, the photography still did not fit into the system of social values and priorities at once. Nevertheless, there were those who were already considering photo as one of the manifestations of the art at that time. French painter Paul Delaroche once emphasized on the opportunities offered by photography writing that painting was dead from the day photography emerged. And he was absolutely correct in his statement, as possession of photographic technique, and mastering it look a lot easier than, for instance, mastering the technique of playing a musical instrument. This ease is misleading critics in considering photography as an art. And this is the exact thing that few manage to unveil in photography, all of its art features, and powerful artistic potential.
Photography is an art
In the first couple years after it has been discovered, photography was attributed to the entertainment. Before this moment, painting was given such a function, but when photography arrived, it actually relieved painting from a function of graphic fixing the facts. It can be said that by this picture has helped to develop the painting itself, and also absorbing much of the centuries-old experience of the visual arts. The vision of the world “ through a frame” is the heritage of painting, so how can it be stated that photography is not an art, with picture frame being the first storyboard in the history of culture.
One of the central problems in the identification of any art form is the problem of identifying the tongue of the art. Photography is an impassive mirror of the world, in which the artist is able to express his personal attitude towards the moment that is captured in a picture by using different shooting angle, light distribution, light and shade, the transfer of nature’s identity, the ability to correctly choose the time of shooting. The photographer is, therefore, no less active in his field, than, say, an artist in any other form of art.
Even though, it cannot be denied that technical means have reduced to a minimum the needed human efforts for obtaining a reliable picture, but not anyone can fix, and reflect his chosen subject in a beautiful way. Technological side of the shooting is run by photography equipment, whereas, parameters of the shot depend on the set of specific skills of a photographer. And in this case the main purpose of photography equipment is absolutely opposite: it is not to ensure the effect of “ complete imitation”, but the effect of invasion, purposeful deformation of the output with the aim of isolating the character of the nature, and the importance of the human relationship to the reflected.
All of the existing arguments as to the artistic nature of photography are possible mainly in terms of seeking approval, and fundamental similarities with the traditional forms of art, as well as in terms of recognition of indigenous features of photography, its fundamental differences from traditional arts. But considering from all the evidence provided above the only logical conclusion that can be made is that photography is an art, an independent one too, which is hard to master, but so astounding to know how, and to be able to use.
Cemal, Ekin. Fine Art Photography. (2007): Keep Light Photography. Web. http://www. keptlight. com/fine-art-photography/