In his blog Brycen asks the question, "Is photography really art?"
In my opinion, photography is definitely an art form. True anyone can take a photo of anything and try and pass it off as a work of art. And I'll admit that this is not necessarily art. When someone dedicates their life to photography, however, this is a different thing. Oftentimes referred to as fine art photography, this form--more so than any piece of photography, commercial photography or photojournalism--is "created in accordance with the creative vision of the photographer as artist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art_photography). When someone has studied how lines and colors of certain objects--significant forms?-- when put together in certain ways can be arranged to create something which creates an emotional reaction, this great art.
Brycen also asks, "if photography is to be considered art, then is real life also art? Is nature and everything around us also art?"
In regards to this, I see nature and real life as a different form of art. An artist of fine art photography sets out to take a photograph of something--whether it be everyday life or something planned--where as nature is simply there and everyday life goes on regardless of planning (if you believe in fate and destiny, then you'll likely agree on this with me; that oftentimes, despite how much we plan, things will happen as fate sees fit). Do you think that this type of distinction is what's necessary to differentiate the everyday and the natural from what makes art?
No comments:
Post a Comment