At that time, painting was considered a higher art form than this new mechanical process, and this fact caused some photographers to implement new techniques which made photography more of an art form. Photographers realized that this new medium provided a powerful new way of representing the world. These creative new techniques helped create a movement called Pictorialism, which stressed the importance of emotion or artistic quality rather than the subject or scene depicted. The camera could be used not just to reproduce images in reality, but also to manipulate them to create an illusory reality. These new techniques were the focus of High-Art photography (Leggat Online).

In order to determine if photography can exist as fine art, we must define the term. According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is “any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion” (15). However, Anderson only offers us one definition of the concept out of the many possible definitions; the art realm is inherently subjective, therefore one definition is not necessarily more valid than its opposing definition. For our purposes, though, we will refer to anything that conveys an abstract idea as fine art.

This definition leads us to ask how photographs can portray abstract ideas whereas a camera can only photograph concrete reality. In Arguing About Art, Scruton states that “if a photograph is a photograph of a man, there is a particular man of whom x is the photograph” (196). The photograph cannot exist without anything to photograph. This demonstrates the causal relationship between the camera and the world. Although Scruton argues that “because of its causal and mechanical nature, a photograph can express no thoughts about its subject,” I disagree (AAA 193). Photographs can represent abstract ideas despite the fact that the camera only captures concrete reality.

In order to explain my reasoning for this argument, we must consider the subtractive nature of photography. By choosing how to reveal or hide parts of a subject, the photographer can express thoughts about its subject. The world is brimming with moments of emotion and meaning that are able to be captured through the lens of a camera. For example, through this subtractive process of selecting subjects from the world, the photographer chooses exactly how subjects interact, how they are placed in context to the shape of the photograph, and how they are portrayed their surroundings. Through creative combination of these methods, the photographer can convey emotions or abstract ideas. In Interpreting Art, Terry Barett illustrates this point very concisely. He says that by choosing to zoom in on one person out of the several others nearby, the photographer can “convey isolation or loneliness”. Additionally, she may choose to “join two people into one frame, implying intimacy” (141). The skilled fine art photographer creates visual metaphors to give meaning beyond the image’s superficial beauty.

However, not all photographs have meaning beyond their surface aesthetics. Many photographers will say that they do not intend for their work to express any abstract ideas. Perhaps this is what distinguishes craftsmanship from artistic photography. But ultimately, it is up for the viewer to decide if a photo conveys meaning. This is why we argue about what is art, what is not art, and what is fine art. One common argument demands, “What is the difference between craftsmanship and artistic photography?”

In the pursuit of photography, there are two distinct roads: the utilitarian and the aesthetic. Craftsmanship is utilitarian, and artistic photography is aesthetic. The goal of one is to record facts, and the other is to express beauty. Ninety-nine percent of photographs were never intended as art. They were documents, records, mementos, press photographs, family pictures, surveys, or evidence. Clearly, there is a line between functional photography and photography purely for aesthetic consideration. Not all photographs should be regarded solely in an aesthetic light.

Photography is not art any more than oil paint is art. The best photography can stand beside that of other major figures in art. True, cameras have almost always been advertised for mass consumption by non-artists, but the fact that mediocrity exists in the medium doesn’t prevent greatness from emerging from it. As Ansel Adams once said, “No one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium” (Radeka Online). Just as having a brush and paint does not make one a painter, being able to operate a camera does not make one a photographer.

Scruton argues that photographers who do wish to create art are simply polluting their craft with “aims and methods of painting” (AAA 196). What does he mean by this? Scruton assumes that ideal photography is a completely mechanical process, and that the photographer who aims to create aesthetically pleasing photos is taking techniques from painters. Painting and photography are two completely different modes of representation, and one is not inherently superior to the other. Both forms possess the capability to communicate abstract ideas through deliberate, aesthetic choices. I disagree with the argument that photographers take their techniques from painters, primarily on the basis of my belief that as humans, most of us have an intuitive feel for what is aesthetically pleasing. It is this inherent aesthetic sense that lead to the formation of the foundational elements and principles of design, which are utilized in aesthetically pleasing paintings and photographs.

In a visual composition, be it a photograph or a painting, one can utilize the elements of design in a way that can be compared to language. The elements of design are our visual vocabulary. Color, line, form, shape, value, and texture make up the elements of design. Balance, gradation, repetition, depth, contrast, dominance and unity make up some of the principles of design (Lovett, Online). In writing, a story is written with words, which are equivalent to subject matter in the realm of photography. The effective use of word choice and grammar can be compared to the successful use of the elements and principles of design in a photo. The difference between the painter and the photographer is that the painter creates with these principles in mind, whereas the photographer sees them in nature or everyday life. When trying to capture these naturally-occurring elements of design, I may adjust the viewfinder of my camera to center my subject in the photograph and create balance. I may notice the repetition of trees or the gradation of the sky during a sunset and capture it in such a way that it evokes a feeling of tranquility. Like a good poem, the use of these descriptors can create an aesthetically pleasing image that tells a story.

Whether color, black and white, abstract or documentary, photos tell a story without the need for words. Sometimes photographs that were never meant to be viewed as art become art just through their narrative superiority. Anyone who has seen photographs of intense moments of human emotion in war, poverty, or social conflict can confirm that photographs express emotions that could otherwise not be expressed merely by literary or painterly methods. For this reason, photography has rooted itself so deeply in our culture that we now rely on photography to tell stories, advertise products, record history, and communicate visual ideas. It not only documents the human experience, but it also helps us understand more about ourselves and our existence in this world.

Photography’s range of applications far exceeds that of any other medium. Although photography is not intrinsically better than painting, photography has the power to convey abstract ideas and emotion in ways that painting cannot. Although the division between the utilitarian and aesthetic dimensions of photography causes some to deny its status as fine art, I have shown that it can indeed portray abstract ideas and emotions, therefore, it is worthy of the term fine art.

AAA: Neill, Alex and Ridley Aaron, eds. Arguing About Art. London: Routledge, 2002.

Anderson, Paul L. The Fine Art of Photography. New York: Arno Press, 1973.

Barrett, Terry. Interpreting Art. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003.

Leggat, Robert “A History of Photography.” 27 February 2005.
<http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/>

Lovett, John. “Elements and Principles of design.” 26 February 2005.
<http://www.johnlovett.com/test.htm>

Radeka, Lynn. “Digital vs. Traditional Photography.” 1 March 2005.
<http://www.maskingkits.com/digitalvstraditional.htm>