What is the relationship between photograpy and art?

Here are my thoughts. Photography is a form of communication and, as such, involves both the photographer and the viewer. Just as with the monologue and dialogue in spoken communication, photography can consist of those images that give the whole picture and those that do not. I would say that if the viewer cannot contribute to the photograph, it is not art. While this type of photography can be useful, for example the documentation of a happy event to be viewed at some time in the future, that which allows the viewer to add in his or her thoughts and ideas has a greater purpose. It engages us and inspires us emotionally. This is art.

What are your thoughts?

Depends on why you take a photograph. You don't necessarily need an audience for a photo to be great.

nicksan wrote in post #11699001
Depends on why you take a photograph. You don't necessarily need an audience for a photo to be great.

What is your definition of a "great photograph"?

I think you've been thinking too much. Photography, just like art, can be art, "or not."

A dissected cow in transparent tanks was not, is not, and never will be art. Neither will anything made out of poo.

If your photography is that nobody can understand, most likely is art then

Just joking.

As long as a good photos, who care

frugivore wrote in post #11700464
What is your definition of a "great photograph"?

I'd say that's a question that will always be defined and redefined in different ways.

To your original question, one way of answering it is the relationship between photography and art is "whatever you make of it" -- both in the intentions of the photographer, the work that goes into a photograph itself both in the capture and in the processing, and in the end the presentation to and imact on the viewer.

But, I myself don't look at my photography as art, even if some of my images show some creativity! Actually I consider an image successful if I manage to effectively capture the light, colors and composition of a scene that interests me. A lot of my stuff has been nature, landscapes, critters, flowers and such. In that case, the artist is Nature, not me!

Photography is like many other artistic mediums. Canvas, Paper, Still, Motion Pictures, Clay, Stone, anything that a person can use to express their thoughts and emotions. There are powerful combinations that can achieve amazing results as evidenced here on this board on a daily basis. Take someone with a flair and talent to setup an amazing portrait or scene either in a real setting or in the digital realm and they can put something fantastic together.

There are also those of us who are artistically challenged but love the medium (photography). We struggle with coming up with ideas, don't have mad Photoshop skills but continue to try as we may, to produce what we think is the perfect image of what we saw or felt the moment the shutter clicked.

I am the patient one, one who struggles to find just the right moment in time to click that shutter but when I do, I hope I've captured what I was feeling at that moment. I don't much care what anyone else thinks because, you see, it's mine and not yours.

Art is totally subjective, devoid of technical nonsense, rules of thirds, proper exposure and color balance. IT IS ART, pure and simple.

KaiserSose wrote in post #11700710
I think you've been thinking too much. Photography, just like art, can be art, "or not."

A dissected cow in transparent tanks was not, is not, and never will be art. Neither will anything made out of poo.

I will ask again, what is your definition of "art"? I would say that whereas photography, cinema, painting, music is all communication, "art" can then be said to be the quality of that communication. And on top of that, it must involve input from the viewer. If there is no input, there is no art. Where there can be input from the user, it is art, regardless of the subject matter. What do you think?

frugivore wrote in post #11700464
What is your definition of a "great photograph"?

Why does that matter to you?

frugivore wrote in post #11701049
I will ask again, what is your definition of "art"? I would say that whereas photography, cinema, painting, music is all communication, "art" can then be said to be the quality of that communication. And on top of that, it must involve input from the viewer. If there is no input, there is no art. Where there can be input from the user, it is art, regardless of the subject matter. What do you think?

Why the fixation on "communication"? Having an audience isn't a prerequisite for art.

tonylong wrote in post #11700736
But, I myself don't look at my photography as art, even if some of my images show some creativity! Actually I consider an image successful if I manage to effectively capture the light, colors and composition of a scene that interests me. A lot of my stuff has been nature, landscapes, critters, flowers and such. In that case, the artist is Nature, not me!

Exactly right. I am saying that photography can be classified as art, given that there can be two-way communication between the photographer and the viewer and non-art, if there is no room for interpretation. A picture of a grave is just that. A picture of a woman kneeling and crying by a grave gives the viewer room to add their ideas. That would be art. (ok, not a great example but I'm too tired to think of a good one)

nicksan wrote in post #11701062
Why does that matter to you?

It matters because a meaningful discussion requires that we are all using the same meaning for terms. For example, if one person considers year-old technology as "modern" while the other considers decade-old technology as "modern", then they will have trouble discussing the most influential modern gadgets. I want to make sure that I know what you consider a great picture so that we're on the same page.

frugivore wrote in post #11701107
It matters because a meaningful discussion requires that we are all using the same meaning for terms. For example, if one person considers year-old technology as "modern" while the other considers decade-old technology as "modern", then they will have trouble discussing the most influential modern gadgets. I want to make sure that I know what you consider a great picture so that we're on the same page.

Why would you think that my interpretation of a "great picture" would be the same as yours or anyone else or that it would be relevant at all?

Heres a few quotes on the subject by some of the greats.
" great photograph is a full expression of what one feels about what is being photographed in the deepest sense, and is, a true expression of what one feels about life in its entirety." - Ansel Adams

"An art is definable only in its own terms; it is as difficult to write about photography as it is about music, especially from a personal viewpoint. I feel that as one grows older his credo becomes simpler and more direct. Penetrating the smoke screens of equipment and techniques, glamor, ideology, and simple achievementmotive, the art of photography appears as strong and vital – and purposeful – as any other creative medium, and stands cleanly on its own feet. We are confronted today with a dichotomy; as our equipment and materials constantly grow in scope and quality the creative and technical standards appear to be diminishing; there is a near-cult of photographers who seem to intentionally avoid the beautiful and precise image, concentrating only on subject and obvious function. My personal reaction to this attitude is a determination to go as far in the opposite direction as possible. I believe in the most beautiful and appropriate prints, and the most clarifying and revealing approach of mind, heart, and craft. I believe that firm objectives in this directin can fulfill the promis of photography as one of the great visual arts. However, we must always be logical in our critical estimates; most of photography is not intended as art and should not be judged as such. But if art is intended, compromise must not be tolerated." - Ansel Adams

"You are asking me what makes a good picture. For me, it is the harmony between subject and form that leads each one of those elements to its maximum of expression and vigor." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

"To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event, as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression. I believe that through the act of living, the discovery of oneself is made concurrently with the discovery of the world around us which can mould us, but which can also be affected by us. A balance must be established between these two worlds- the one inside us and the one outside us. As the result of a constant reciprocal process, both these worlds come to form a single one. And it is this world that we must communicate. But this takes care only of the content of the picture. For me, content cannot be separated from form. By form, I mean the rigorous organisation of the interplay of surfaces, lines and values. It is in this organisation alone that our conceptions and emotions become concrete and communicable. In photography, visual organisation can stem only from a developed instinct." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

"Photography is, for me, a spontaneous impulse coming from an ever attentive eye which captures the moment and its eternity." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

"The difference between a good picture and a mediocre picture is a question of millimetres – small, small difference. But it’s essential. I don’t think there’s so much difference between photographers, but it’s that little difference that counts, maybe." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

nicksan wrote in post #11701073
Why the fixation on "communication"? Having an audience isn't a prerequisite for art.

I would disagree, but the "Audience" can just as easily be the artist.

There is also an argument for the art of creating art, or that the experience of the creation is art in and of itself, but I disagree. Writing incoherent words on paper just for the sake of, or the enjoyment of, writing hardly seems like art to me.