30th June 2011
Photography for me has been a hobby that I’ve practised on and off for over 40 years, although I’ve never been able to concentrate on it as I can now. In the past I’ve either had the equipment but not the time, or time and not the equipment, now I have both and I intend to make the most of it.
One of the questions I’ve asked many acquaintances is, “Is photography art or is it just a technical process?” The answers have always fallen into two camps, those that do consider it art and those that say whilst not entirely just a technical process, it’s not truly art, and that what images they take should be as they came out of the camera, not post-processed.
My firm belief is that I look upon photography as art. Let’s face it Fox-Talbot developed his photography techniques, and took the image of the oriel window, simply because he couldn’t do what other ‘gentlemen’ of the period considered a requirement, DRAW. Drawing is art and therefore if photography was developed because someone couldn’t produce art by hand, then it follows that photography must be art!
That statement must be tempered of course as not all photography is necessarily art. By that I mean, is all traditional drawing and painting art? Some modern art is considered very good, but there is a great deal that isn’t and what is considered good is purely subjective; what’s good to one person is rubbish to another, that’s what makes the subject so universally appealing.