Is Photography Art? Why/ why Not?

[Scott Edwards]

Sheesh, you guys....
Get out and take some pictures!

[Rocky]

I figure no one likes being put down for choosing photography as a creative outlet. It is no fun when someone claims a high point from which they can demean another person's efforts at expression.

If I have an interesting photograph and a boring painting on my wall, which one will people look at more than once?

A more interesting question would be: If what I am being shown sucks, is it Art?

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In case you guys didn't know: In Canada, photography is not an art, from the perspective of the law.

Read the explanation here in my longish post: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthrea...458#post289458

Next question, please.

[Uncle Bill]

I think she is jealous, of course Photography is an art. While we don't muck around with pencils, paint, clay, crayons etc. We make images, pleasing images with light, mechanics, chemicals and thin strips of plastic film. These images can be for strictly beauty's sake, tell a story, start a controversy, used for purly commercial purposes. Regardless of the goal it is the creative side of your brain that gets the workout.
As for what other "artists" think of this medium, that is their problem, not mine.

Bill

[Jim Chinn]

And how are we to distinguish between roses and weeds?

Thistles are considered flowers in some parts of the world. In
Nebraska and probably other parts of the US they are considered noxious weeds by the states department of agriculture.

The point being that while I consider photography to be an art form, critics, curators, collectors and peers determine if a particular persons work should be elevated to that lofty standard.

Now that does not mean that the director of the department of photography at MOMA needs to like your work. If it brings some joy and satisfaction to you and a few others, does it really matter how anyone else classifies it?