So let's get this oldie but goodie fired up here. Guaranteed to get any community of photographers and photoeditors and image-makers stirred up even in the pre-Internet days and now more than ever.

 

There aren't many die-hards left who would insist that a photograph is not a photograph if it's not taken on film, though there are plenty who still prefer film as a medium.

 

There are those who would insist that a photograph stops being a photograph when it is significantly edited by software, others would draw the line at the addition or subtraction of elements which were not (or were) in view at the time the image was taken.

 

There are those who would draw the line at the addition of significant components created in another visual medium (drawing or painting).

 

Others who would draw no lines, find the whole discussion misguided or are uninterested in distinguishing "a photograph" from "a visual work".

 

----

 

I think personally I'm close to the latter group in the sense that exercises in definition are generally only useful if they instruct or enlighten a creative person about the path ahead of them, by suggesting a technique or a technology or an aesthetic, by directing the creative person to a community and a history of work. On the other hand, you cannot be like Humpty-Dumpty and just declare that words mean what I say and say what I mean. There are still public expectations around photography that expect it to be "real" or to have a special association with a particular technology of representation.

 

There are certainly also kinds of images that I'm personally not fond of--either that I don't want to make, don't particularly like seeing, or that I think have a bad influence on other photographers or visual artists. But I'd rather deal with those for what they are instead of declaring them to be not-photos, as if excommunication is a plausible alternative to critique.

Hi Timothy,

 

It's late here so shortly for now. Yes, it is an oldie-goldie, which of course has been discussed on 1X more than once (old forums are not up yet to see it).

 

Your views are very close to my views, the views of an observer, seeing primarily how things are in real life, as opposed to how they should be. People draw lines in all different places, not only in photography. Yet, I do accept some common lines, like no adding or subtracting objects in photojournalism, or no adding animals in Nature. Other than similar cases, visual work of whatever provenance is fine with me, unless it claims to represent reality as is, explicitly or implicitly.

 

Anna

Apart from the technical aspect on which medium a photograph is 'captured'one can say that a photo is a single capture of a single scene in a single moment in time. That scene can be very large or very small the period of time anything from extremely long to extremely short.

This in contrast to a painting which is often a composite of objects that where either never together in a single scene in 'real' life, is not a capture of a single discrete moment in time.

 

Hi Willem,

Well, with your creativity I think I will challenge you a bit. :) One of my favorite photographers - very creative man long long ago - made photos that sometimes included paintings, parts of them, and even created his own types of photography. That would be Man Ray. It is all in one frame eventually, a photo, but today we would call it a composite.Maybe a photo can also be more than single scene...and a composite? I would have to say yes...because he shows me evidence of it... This series was brilliant...if you have time some day to watch it...It is one film but broken up here...give it a bookmark.I think you will love it.. Of course this is from the darkroom, but it surely could be done in

Photoshop and still be magnificent. :)

Phyl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArcwGJts0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHUQyN8q7HU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAviAqAq37k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXGtqivfEvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF-gvhbPJP4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXX5QV32swA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwFTkOnrX3Q

Thanks for the links Phyllis, I'll need more time to look at these., maybe I'll try to glue them together

 

"My defintion" does not have the intention to demote anything that is not a single capture of space and time.... It's just something that set Photography apart from the other forms of art. It somehow builds on Szarkowski's definition

 

"The invention of photography provided a radically new picture-making process - a process based not on synthesis but on selection. The difference was a basic one. Paintings were made - constructed from a storehouse of traditional schemes and skills and attitudes - but photographs, as the man on the street put it, were taken.

The difference raised a creative issue of a new order: how could this mechanical and mindless process be made to produce pictures meaningful in human terms - pictures with clarity and coherence and a point of view? It was soon demonstrated that an answer would not be found by those who loved too much the old forms, for in large part the photographer was bereft of the old artistic traditions. Speaking of photography Baudelaire said: “This industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art’s most mortal enemy.”(1) And in his own terms of reference Baudelaire was half right; certainly the new medium could not satisfy old standards. The photographer must find new ways to make his meaning dear."

 

But in essence that defines the base of what photography and a photo is. It's artistic licence to go beyond that, changing content by adding / subtracting information. Mixing it with other techniques, putting installations in photo's and photos in installations.. Making a picture of such an installation again to capture that installations with changed photographs in it, and maybe changing that again.

 

One could call a lot of these art types photography based art, creative edit or whatsoever. But what really is special about photography and made it something completely different is the ability to capture that single moment of space and time on a photographic medium.

 

So if if I mix two photographs, I take it (back or forward) to another level of synthesis again. With (digital or dark room) processing, or by using specific artistic gadgets in front of the camera the border is much more vague not in terms of synthesis vs selection, but in adaptation of that single moment of space time. For me ( but that's rather arbitrary) it transcends photography if the processing is intended not to show or represent that particular moment of space time, but intended to be the building material for something like abstractions. But of course it's also possible to get an highly abstract effect without (much) post processing too.

 

But in the end for me what counts is the end effect and the enjoyment / challenge that brings.

 

Now where is that bookmark button...... ;-)

 

 

Williem my husband asks me...Why are photographers always trying to 'define' what a photograph is? When did you hear of a Painter saying what is a painting? Trying to take it further he said..that he thinks photographers are really quite insecure about Photography actually being considered an art form and so they go to great lengths to explain what they do.

 

In the end ....if light strikes something and creates an image...is that enough?:))

Phyl

 

 

:-)

 

it's a pity we don't get notifications I almost missed this one...

 

I'm not sure if it is specific for photographers. From a historical POV photography was quite a revolution. It gave power to the people, in capturing what they found worthwhile capturing, and at a much lower price than paying a painter to do so, and also in a much more direct relation to what was there in front of the camera.

From an 'art' perspective the technique as such isn't really important, what counts is the final results. From a perspective of art-history and social history it is interesting to work on and with definitions, because it can help seeing things and explaining things.

And I'm not sure if photographers are insecure about photography in relation to other art forms...

 

I've got two books in my 'personal library'

 

"Graphic art of WWII", with a personal narrative by James Jones" author of 'from here to eternity"

and

"The Camera at War. War photography from 1848 to the present day". by Jorge Lewinski"

 

Both contain images and stories that bring tears to your eyes and make you think. But the images and the way they work are different. The photographic captures are all captures of specific ,moments in space and time. The drawings and paintings are much more a mental representation of a mood, a situation and sometimes also a specific moment in space and time. The effect might be the same, but the way it works and who can use it is different. Both in the making of the specific images and in the way it can be distributed.

 

A painting as such is a one of

An etch can be reproduced more often

A photo film can be reproduced even more easy

A digital file can be shared globally instantly

 

Making paintings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, or analogue photography never could have had the effect of closing the net as the collective amount of material of everybody filming and shooting the event with their cellphones.

In another way it (digital photography and the internet) has also changed the way news is brought to us. We used to get (background) stories first an images to illustrate what has happened or showing who played a part later. Now we get images first, a lot of live speculation on the images second, and for those really interested, (hopefully) a coherent and investigated story later. But most likely most people by then will have moved on to visual stimuli of the next incident or disaster.

I don't think it's important to define what a photgraph is in terms of artistich appreciation. But trying to understand what (digital) photography is and the way it has influenced (and is influencining) how the world we live in is represented and by whom is an interesting subject.

 

So when painting was the only way to document things, only the powerful people could show their stories and portraits

With the invention of printing that balance of power shifted .

With the arrival of photography, documenting "what is / was" opened up to a much larger part of the population showing 'reality' in a much more tactile way

With the arrival of digital and cellphone photography, the reproduction and sharing of 'reality' has become almost instant, global and massive.

 

So the definition and understanding of photography for me is not important from the perspective of art, but from the perspective of communication and documentation, and in a way democratization of the ability to share the way people from all walks of life can show their (visual) vision on the world they and we live in.

 

it's a pity we don't get notifications I almost missed this one...

 

I'm not sure if it is specific for photographers.

 

From an 'art' perspective the technique as such isn't really important, what counts is the final results. From a perspective of art-history and social history it is interesting to work on and with definitions, because it can help seeing things and explaining things.

And I'm not sure if photographers are insecure about photography in relation to other art forms...

 

I don't think it's important to define what a photgraph is in terms of artistich appreciation. But trying to understand what (digital) photography is and the way it has influenced (and is influencining) how the world we live in is represented and by whom is an interesting subject.

 

So the definition and understanding of photography for me is not important from the perspective of art, but from the perspective of communication and documentation, and in a way democratization of the ability to share the way people from all walks of life can show their (visual) vision on the world they and we live in.

 

What he asked about was Photography...we talked about this thread. ) I should mention he absolutely loves photography, and watches film after film with me. Though he rarely takes pictures. So yes, you can apply it to many things...but his question to me was simply..

 

How come people do not ask what is a painting?

 

I agree with all of what you have said.. Yes, I dont think you have answered his question...or am I wrong about this?

 

Bill likes to learn and read about different masters/techniques etc..so I think he would agree with you on many of the points you make..but still...Do Painters have these kinds of conversations...

What is a painting.?

Yet there are all different kinds of them...over the centuries...

 

A painting can be reproduced millions of times in print...but still we know that it is a print of a painting.

 

Of course paintings can be shared equally as easily on line as photos.

You explain the differences between photo and paintings quite well I think..but neither was that his question...

 

He just wants to understand why a photographer would find it necessary to ask...What is a picture? :)

As for history...and what you describe paintings do this also.

And all the rest you wrote I also agree with that too...

 

On a personal level I do think photography - even the worst kind - is an art form....to someone...

 

What I am not so sure of and perhaps this is why I could not answer him so easily...I just smiled..is this...

 

Why woud be separate out different types of photography - and call some

the real photography and others the not so real photography...and what is and is not real is different for different people.

 

For someone like him...he would agree with you - then when he looks at is the end result that is what makes him decide if it seems artistic to him..and he really has no concern at all as to how it was done..

 

This is how it translates when we look at pictures on One X...as I go through the days photos he might make a sound...to indicate it is okay...but when I hit on something he likes..a lot then he will say - yes..that is great and he will say what he likes about it.. If I were to say...its a composite by now he just says...oh please don't start that again..Who cares - its a wonderful moving image.

 

Or sometimes he picks something quite out of focus and I will point out tht it is not quite in focus..and he just says....I can see it....and I like it..and this enough..why must the eyes be sharp?

 

I share this with you because Bill is an artist - he writes poetry most of which is now published on a regular basis,and he draws...with watercolor pencils..mostly.

 

I think I would say if you take the lens cap off the camera and you point it in a direction where there is enough light to create an image...then you have a picture. That is what a picture is. If you choose to put ten of them together using your digital darkroom, and make one from it..you still have nothing more than a picture...Now if you start to do other things to it..ahh..different story.

 

And still I cannot really answer Bill's question about insecurity. I do not have the answer. This is why I asked others..:)

 

Thanks for your wonderful reply I will read it to him.

Phyl

 

<<A painting can be reproduced millions of times in print...but still we know that it is a print of a painting.>>

 

It takes a photograph to be able to do that.... ;-)

 

I don't know why people don't ask what is a painting, maybe because it has been the 'standard' means of representing reality since we left the trees and entered the caves?

I suppose most of the time people wonder about 'whats new' and less about "what's been here as long as we remember" What probably has happened with the arrival of photography is that along with the process of defining photography a more precise definition of painting has matured.

 

And looking back at the history of 'painting' there have been pretty heated debates there too. Rembrandt has had a tough time for not meeting the standards of meeting the idea of what constitutes a painting in his days and so has Van Gogh.

 

Probably the technical difference between photography and painting makes a bit of a difference. To simplify things with painting you've got an artist, with an idea, a canvas, brushes and paint. That's it. The process of applying paint is pretty standard. With photography there is a wider variety in the process of getting the final result.

 

Setting up artificial light, selecting lenses apertures, shutterspeeds, types of camera's, camera presets, medium to capture the light. Ways to develop the captured light (analog and digital) means to change that in post processing (lightroom and dark room)

 

I think what makes photographers hit each other over the head more often than painters is that for painters it is pretty obvious that that what ends up on the canvas is a projection from the artists mind, even if it is a representation of something real (the painter being the camera obscura). Photographers somehow maybe tend to think more often that what they do is capturing "reality" and the most heated debates take place along self defined boundaries on what is "done" and "not done" in representing reality.... :-)

 

Maybe Bill will like this one:

 

"All painters are artists, creating something new. All photographers are craftsmen representing / distorting something old."

 

I'm going into hiding now.... ;-)

 

What is a photograph? That's a very tough question....for myself,

it's a way specific time fragment. the shutterspeed with a specific

lens & aperture given, captured onto film or a digital sensor,

rays of light, photons onto structure. texture, and everything else...

where the light is.

 

and a often nice or great moment to remember myself in life when

i'm growing older, because i make my pictures just for my own

joy & pleasure, and to keep track of my memories....and to grow

better while doing this, hopefully within the years to come...

 

A photograph is an image a photographer has made with his camera... maybe a little to simple this definition?.. I heard a definition recentlly that I liked a lot - because it was so simple and to the point : to make a photograph is to "paint" with light. Anyway it is a good question since we don't have an answer to it....