In Praise of Digital Photography

by Dan Brown

The controversy about whether photography is art is one that has been raging in the art world for a long time and we are not likely to totally solve it here. But it can be an important decision you have to make if you are considering a career in photography with the goal of producing quality art works. If that is where you are, the idea that someone would say “That’s not art, you just took a picture” is pretty disturbing. So it’s worth looking at the question from several different angles before we pick which side to weigh in on.

Of course, art is a subjective thing. Many people would look at a Jackson Pollack “splatter” artwork and determine most definitely that modern art is not art because it “doesn’t look like anything.” And if you spend any time in the modern art world, you will definitely see something at some time along the way occupying space in a perfectly respectable art museum that, to you, could never be considered art.

For most of us, though, the company Eastman Kodak is probably the one we associate most with the early developments of photography. And it was the early pioneer of photography, George Eastman that made the first advancements on the primitive methods being used until his work in 1839. A little trivia? Eastman made the name “Kodak” up because he wanted his company name to begin with a “K”.

But just wanting something to be art doesn’t make it art does it? As a layman in the art world, I sometimes go with the “I don’t know art but I know what I like” system of evaluating pieces I see. Art, after all, has a tendency to touch us in another place that is above and beyond the image. It is an emotional place, a place of reflection and understanding. Maybe we would say it touches our “soul”. For a work to be art, there should be a message, a feeling, a reason the artist made the work because he or she wanted to say something, even if how I interpret the statement is different than what the artist meant.

So that might also be an evaluation of a photograph as to its artistic merit or not. Now the primary objection to whether photography is art sometimes is that a photograph is often a realistic depiction of a moment taken with a machine and some would say that “anybody can take a picture.” The implication is that the same mechanical skill it might take to paint a picture of sculpt a statue is not needed for photographic art.

Further development coming virtually every year since 1990 included the rapid and phenomenal expansion of memory in digital cameras along with the concept of swappable storage drives. This changed the way people took pictures because now the number of pictures someone could take was virtually limitless. The expansion of memory also gave developers the ability to add video capture to the same devices as were used for photography so that virtually anyone could become a cameraman with that tiny camera that could by this time fit in their shirt pocket. Much of the fun of internet sites like YouTube can be attributed to the ability of the average citizen to take video anywhere, anytime and at no cost to them.

Good evidence comes from the credit some great art experts have given to photographic exhibitions in the fine museums in the world. The very fact that photography is considered art by those who know may be evidence enough. So the conclusion must be that because the arguments against the artistic value of photographs are weak and people who know consider photography to be art, then we are safe in viewing what we do artistically too. And that opens up that side of your soul to express yourself through the medium you love the most - photography.

About the Author:

Dive into a new area and begin photography editing. It starts here where you can find out all about professionally crop digital photos Don’t waste any more time.