Recently I stumbled upon a discussion of whether digital photography, with all of its complex, powerful cameras and its Photoshop manipulation, could be considered to be art.
My immediate response was, of course it can! But upon reflection, I think a more measured response might be in order.
I started in photography as a kid with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, which used 127 roll film. I still have that little camera. I really learned the craft of photography in journalism school using a Speed Graphic, which used 4 x 5 sheet film, and moved onto rangefinder and SLR cameras that used 36-mm roll film. I spent many hours in the darkroom developing that film, then making prints from the few images that were acceptable. None of that was easy or intuitive.
These days, I shoot digital cameras. They are far more complex, and far more powerful and flexible, than any film camera ever was. They are much more difficult to use, if by “use,” we mean employing all their features. I pretty much try to do that, but I still come home with lots of images that are not worth printing.
My darkroom now resides in my computer. It is far more complex, more powerful and flexible, than any darkroom in which I ever fooled around. Though I edit my images like crazy, discarding most of them, I still manage to waste paper and ink as I attempt art. In making that attempt, I print my images on 8.5 x 11 sheets of photo paper. I frame a few and store many others in plastic sleeves in large three-ring binders.
So I think the question has several answers. One that occurs to me is yes, digital photography is art. Or at least it can be. Maybe.
But another question is this one: What is art? I’m not sure I know.
I do know that at least a few of the images I’ve made with roll and sheet film rise to the level of art, at least as I define it. All I ever try to do is produce an honest image, one that reflects not just technical competence, but also a certain beauty, and which evokes an emotional response.
I have some level of confidence that a few of the digital images I’ve made rise to the level of art. A few. Most don’t. Blame it on a crushing lack of talent.
The old saying, however, is that “Art lies in the eye of the beholder.” So, my photos may not rise to the level of art at all. I don’t much care, as long as they satisfy me.
I took a wildlife photo workshop a couple of years ago. We participants got lots of fine, advanced instruction from our teachers.
What we learned caused one participant to observe, “I used to know a lot about photography. Now I realize I don’t know anything about photography.”
That’s pretty much where I am. I don’t know much about art, either. But at least I know what I like. I think that probably that is the bottom line.
So is digital photography art? Maybe. If you think it is, it just might be.
-JFT