photography

United States
September 11, 2009 11:19am CST
Does anything think that photography is a real part of art? After all the only thing you do is take the picture and develop it. How is one picture of half a tree better than a picture of half a tree?
5 responses
@fifileigh (3619)
• United States
12 Sep 09
yes. i think photography is part of art. but it all depends on the photographer and how they photograph stuff. my photography is more artistic. i like doing surreal photography. maybe if you want your photography to be more artistic, go browse in museums and art galleries at different paintings and artwork, and study the work. try to create similar stuff in your photography. like make a picture of a tree, more than just a tree by make it more interesting. show part of that tree, maybe the trunk or branch or leaf, or bark. play with lighting, composition, zoom lens, etc, to creatively change it, whether blurring it or make it very clear that you can actually count the lines of the bark on it. play with angles and sides, taking pictures of the same thing from different areas.
• Australia
17 Sep 09
Emulating other forms of art is part of learning; but photography is NOT painting. It has its own rhythms an subtleties and qualities; art is about originality, and surprise, and discovery and exposing one's self and others to new meanings and experiences.
@fifileigh (3619)
• United States
18 Sep 09
photography is an artform, and i have seen many photographs emulate painting by creating a detailed photograph scene that looks exactly like the painting but it is a photograph instead. it is interesting. i took a photography, and that was one of my assignment, but it was hard for me to make my photograph exactly like the painting i chose. i had create the modern version. which also many photographs to. i have seen that in art galleries.
@coffeegurl (1467)
• United States
17 Mar 10
Of course it is.
• Australia
17 Sep 09
People asked the same question when paint became available premixed in tubes: how was this art when the colours were determined by a factory? I bet they said something similar the first time someone used a brush instead of their hands to apply the pigment. The camera is a very sophisticated tool. One an artist can use. Not all painting is "art" and not all painters are artists. The difference is perhaps that, because of the technical skills involved, most painters, sculptors and others set out to create art. It is their intent. Some succeed better than others. People with cameras are less likely to have such high-blown expectations, yet many do produce works of great beauty or universal appeal, or depth of meaning - and some do so intentionally every time they make a photograph.
@sredith (239)
• United States
11 Sep 09
I used to say that photography wasn't art and that it was simply just capturing life's art or God's art, but then I started taking photos myself and I realized that there is a different between photography as an art and just simply taking pictures. If you are a photographer, an artist, it's about having an eye for beauty, and being able to capture the shot from the right angle. You have to have an open mind as to what you find photo worthy and what you consider to be beautiful. It's also important to capture the image that you're trying to show the world in it's most beautiful light and best angle, and to make it real for those viewing the photo.
@LdeL0318 (6421)
• Philippines
11 Sep 09
For me, photography is really an art. It's not just about taking pictures and developing it. It's about the message you want to convey regarding the pictures.