Photography - Is It Art?

With the advent of digital photography and computerised post-processing, there is much discussion nowadays about the "validity" of photography as an art form. Artists who paint using traditional methods such as oil and watercolour might regard digital art or digitally enhanced photographs as being somehow inferior, as they conceive that digital methods are less time-consuming and require less skill than physically applying paint to canvas or paper.

As an occasional painter myself I would agree that a meticulous rendering in oil on canvas of a landscape, for example, would take far longer than it took me to post-process a photograph of a similar scene. In the hands of a very talented artist an original painting might well be more attractive than a photograph of the same subject. It's a matter of personal taste and judgement.

However, several things need to be borne in mind here. Firstly, the photographer needs to be physically in the right place at the right time, with the right camera and the right lens, the right settings, etc., and the list continues. A good sense of composition, framing, perspective and many other factors also come into play. During the post-processing phase, the photographer has to select and understand the software, and apply the desired effects skilfully and artistically. Whereas the painter can legitimately use any photograph as a reference for his work, the photographer must only use his own work to produce the final image.

With a painting, there is an "original", i.e. the painting itself. With a digital photograph, let's be honest, there is no original: it is nothing more nor less than a computer file. This brings me to my final point: the vast majority of the art which is sold online is a photographic print, whether it is a photograph of a painting or drawing, a piece of digitally created art, a manipulated photograph or a photograph per se, it is quite simply the same thing: a photographic print of a digital file. Calling it a "giclée" print or whatever does not make it more valuable or desirable.

So, what is preferable? A photo of a painting, a photo which looks like a painting, or a photo which looks like a photo? The answer of course is that it is what the buyer finds most appealing and whether it fulfils the need he or she has for a particular image. Art is art, whether it is good art, bad art, pretty art, ugly art - beauty is in the eye of the beholder, always assuming that art has to be beautiful, which of course it doesn't.

Just as a photographer should not underestimate the art of a painter, the converse should also apply. All art forms are equally valid, especially when it comes to buying photographic prints of artworks on the internet.