The question has been asked a million times.

Is photography art?

We all know what photography is.  It’s an image, frozen in time, by a person with the aid of technology.

Whether that technology is a new digital camera, a Polaroid camera, toy camera, or homemade pinhole it matters not.

What matters, insofar as this question is concerned, is a matter of the intention of the photographer.  Did the photographer intend to create art? and further, did the photographer accomplish said goal?

Let’s consider where art is as pertaining to photography.

Here’s what I believe:

Art lives in the tension between abstraction and description.

Think about that for a bit.

Really drink it in.

Abstraction <–>–<–>–<–>[ART?]<–>–<–>–<–>Description

I know.  Not all photography is art.  I know.

But consider that most, if not all, of the photography that truly resonates IS art.

The best photographs are the ones that provide a context (description) but leave enough room for individual interpretation by the viewer (abstraction).

It allows the viewer to “fill in the blanks” and resonates because it becomes a personal viewing experience.

Draw them in!

You draw in the viewer with a subject or setting that is familiar. The universal themes that almost anyone can relate to, in one way or another, are what beckon the viewer to come into the image.

Let them explore!

You leave enough wiggle room in the image for each person to place themselves into the scene.

It’s just one idea really.

There are a million ways to think about whether photography is art.

But I do believe that if we want to think about what makes good photography transcend into the realm of Art we have to think about the qualities that draw viewers into the photograph in such an encompassing way that it can ONLY be perceived as Art.

Difficult?  Sure.  But an exercise worth trying.

Now I want to know; do you think photography is art?  How do you know?  What makes photography art?

Use the comments section below.  I’d love to hear your thoughts.