Sometimes it seems that the art community regards photography as something less than art. I have heard some say about photographers, “all they do is push a button how is that art”.
Last year I had my first encounter with the anti photography attitude at a local art show. This particular art show was started a few years ago by an artists community. I participated in the show since it began and it was a good show for me due to its proximity and sales weren’t bad.
When I received my application for the show last year I was dismayed to see that they were closing the show to photographers, only photographers. I read a little further and found that they would let me participate since I had exhibited the year before. After my initial upset I thought maybe it would be good for me since I would have less competition for sales. I decided to attend the show.
Well the exclusionary attitude didn’t end there. The show had a competition, like many do, with a cash prize. When the time came I picked out a photo and headed to the competition area. Of course there was no category for photography. I asked the person collecting the art if I could submit my piece in the mixed media category, which made sense to me since mixed media is where one enters if one’s work fits no other category. I was told to take the matter up with the organizer of the show.
I found her and stated my case. Her response was that I could not compete. She then went on to say that she and the art council decided to eliminate photography from the show since they wanted the show to be a “fine art show”. I was a bit in shock after hearing that. I can understand and respect someone for not liking my work but to make a general statement like that about photography was quite ignorant I felt. I also felt that I was cheated since I had paid to attend the show I should have been given a chance at winning something too.
Now some photographers are more talented than others, just like some painters or sculptors are better than others. A juried art show would be a much better way of excluding the non “fine artists”.
I’ve thought about why some would feel that photography is not a “fine art” and I have a few ideas. Most types of art require a certain amount of physical manipulation during the creation of the piece. A clay pot being spun and formed by hands or oil paint being brushed on canvas come to mind. Those types of art require a degree of coordination and hand eye talent not required by photography. But, does the method of creation define art? For me art is a product of the mind and soul, whether it was painted or printed makes little difference. The artist still has to make the decision as to whether their product is good enough to display or throw away.
In many ways I feel photography is a more challenging craft than many. There are many times that I wish I had the latitude of a painter, I could then make compositions the way that I want them to be, or not have a line of people in front of my subject. The limits of photography dictated by physics can be totally overlooked by painters, I’m talking about depth of field, dynamic range, and resolution. Photographers work in the real world and have to balance compromises to composition, lighting, and technical limitations constantly. Plein air painters have similar challenges as photographers especially with respect to weather.
I know of some painters that work from photographs. Their works have the typical attributes of a photograph, fine details and bokeh (out of focus areas behind and ahead of the subject). Sometimes they didn’t take the original photograph that they painted from, the composition and conditions that existed at the time of the exposure weren’t the painter’s. Should their work be considered less artistic because of the connection and similarity to photography? Is it plagiarism if the painter didn’t actually take the photo? These types of paintings seem highly regarded in the art community.
The photography community still has some inside attitudes of its own. It seems whenever a new technology arises there are those that won’t accept change. The most recent change is from film to digital, before that it was black and white film to color. One of New Hampshire’s largest art associations has a new policy towards accepting new applicants, no digital photographers. The funny thing is that the majority of the photographers of the association, and the ones that made the rule, are digital photographers.
Please realize that I respect and admire other forms of art and I feel that the attitudes discussed here are not the norm. I just feel that some artists don’t fully understand what it takes to create a great photograph, and exclusionary policies don’t help the art scene at all. What is considered fine art should be left to the eye of the beholder.
Dan
