Can a photographer be a full artist without personal post-processing?

Started 7 months ago | Questions thread
SirLataxe Veteran Member • Posts: 3,909
Re: Can a photographer be a full artist without personal post-processing?

Fotoni wrote:

Many photo shooters in film age relied on development services and in digital age rely on camera's default picture profiles and maybe use some filters with presets. It is like you don't have a big control to the final look then. Yes, many think those are enough and have popular photos, but can you give your full vision, if you keep yourself so restricted? Shouldn't artist be very critical about their work and think what could be more interesting?

Define "photographic art" or "the art of photography". Personally, I've not yet been persuaded that there's any such thing.

A camera is a highly automated machine that dictates what the images it makes look like. The process was invented and installed by various technologists working for the camera manufacturer. A photo processing software suite does the same - although you could argue that the various controls provide a means to "paint" graphic art using a photographic image as feedstock and software manipulators as "brushes".....

The images captured by a camera are not "shot". The photographer does not project something of himself or his mind via a camera-gun on to reality. The process is the reverse of that - an already extant and arranged reality projects light into a camera, which captures it in an automated fashion when the photographer points the camera and presses a button.


These days "art" has become one of those words with such a broad and variegated meaning that, essentially, it has no meaning - no commonly understood and employed meaning at least. When some bloke says, "I am an artist", that means nothing unless the "art" can be defined and differentiated by some descriptive criteria of what it means and consists in.

For me, any art has to transmit transcendent meaning via a human (re) arrangement of mundane elements to produce something greater than the sum of its parts such that it provides an insight and meaning that was previously not understood or noticed until the art made it so. It's very rare for a photo to do that.

For it to do so, It has to be more than an automated 2D copy of an already extant 3D reality .... other wise its the 3D arrangement of reality that's the "art" - like the artistic arrangement of clothes on a model in a photo set arranged by a set-designer. Or a picture of some architectural art made manifest in a building. Or the natural "art" of ....nature.

So, to answer your question in a tentative fashion .... no, a photographer can never make photographic art but only graphic art based on an automated product known as a photo. .... graphic art.

A lot of stuff claimed as "art" is merely "decoration". Decorations can be well-crafted, of course.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Smaug01
MOD Smaug01
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow