Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Photography Isn’t Creative  (Read 30112 times)

SunshineD

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Photography Isn’t Creative
« on: August 01, 2025, 08:16:43 am »

We just shared a new article by Ed Schlotzhauer that asks a big question: Is photography creative, or is it just a tool we use to share our ideas? 👉 https://luminous-landscape.com/photography-isnt-creative/
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2025, 11:57:20 am »

"An expert knows all the answers -- if you ask the right questions. "-Source Unknown
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4647
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2025, 11:16:26 am »

I was much surprised by the phrase "photography continues to make inroads as a recognized art medium."

Fact is, photography was first widely accepted as an art form starting in the mid-19th century. While photography has sometimes been denied the "fine art" label, the same is true of other widely accepted media.
Logged

biondostudio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
    • Tom Biondo Photographer
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2025, 03:49:16 pm »

“I am not an artist. I am a photographer.” - Helmut Newton
Logged
Tom Biondo
Frankfurt am Main

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25118
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2025, 05:26:50 pm »

Some photographers are also artists; some photographers are simply photographers; some of the ones who are also artists do not necessarily create works of art with every photograph they make - or take, which two forms of achieving an exposure are not the same thing.

In my opinion, Newton was right to deny artistic pretensions; he was a good photographer who knew exactly how to milk the cult of personality. I have his mini-Sumo, and from it and memory, he turned out to be pretty much a fetish-bound person, driven to shock and not really much concerned with beauty per se.

To drift slightly along with the OT current, Lindberg turned out to be one of those photographers who found his beauty in later life, when he broke through the teutonic hardness of his earlier work and found that gentle femininity with a touch of vulnerability trumps tough cookie. That said, there’s no knowing what client wishes may have dictated, in his case as in general.

Arcimboldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2025, 06:24:38 am »

I have read and re-read the article, and it still isn‘t apparent to me what the headline is founded on.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25118
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2025, 10:14:42 am »

Arc, it probably doesn't really matter. What I believe does matter, is that folks read, think and then put out their reactions. It does surprise me that, in a publication such as this, people seem to be quite reluctant to express any view at all. It must be quite depressing to spend time writing, perhaps researching if needed, put stuff out here online, and not very much happens. It's this corrosive silence that, more than money, might see the end of this site. I’m not speaking here on behalf of anyone else, just putting out my thoughts on the matter.


It might make for interesting reading to run a survey of what draws people to this location today; in past decades there was the fact that digital photography was new and there was a brand new world to discover and to grow comfortable negotiating. That’s not really quite the case today because much more is known, even by neophytes, due to prior experience with cellphones and computers. On top of that, cellphones have replaced massive parts of the camera market. Are cellphone users that interested in photography, as against just snapping lunch or the baby? Who knows. I have made more photos with my cellphone in the past year than with a camera; I tend to forget I have one at all, and certainly don’t relish the thought of having to cart one around…

It was my early-days experience that there was a stronger sense of bonding; perhaps it might have been an older crowd - I have no idea of the stats - but I do remember a loose group of members that seemed to take part in almost everything. Some have suffered health issues that removed them from conversation, others may have passed on to that forum in the sky; I went awol two or three times out of frustration and my own slightly fading interest in photography. Well, perhaps not so much fading, but certainly less drivingly obsessive. Was a time I looked at all the various genre slots available here, even if they were not my thing. I no longer do that, so perhaps the interesting conversations actually do continue, but in places I no longer bother visiting.

I am stunned by how difficult it seems to be to find sites that hold attention, allow one to contribute, and from which much can be learned. With the entire English speaking world upon which to call, I haven’t even found a handful I want to spend time reading. One thing’s for sure: social media ain’t the answer for me. As for equipment review sites, those places where every new thing is the best, your old stuff suddenly incapable of letting you make pictures, keep them. Cynical mothers trying to get sponsorship money.

Arcimboldo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2025, 10:35:03 am »

Hey, Rob – there is some truth in what you wrote. But to revive the site it might take more than some random thoughts stating the obvious. As opposed to the times of Michael Reichmann and Kevin Raber, and, yes, also, for example, Dan Wells writing, I don‘t see how reading this advances my understanding of the medium.
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2807
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2025, 09:37:59 pm »

this line sums it up: ” . . . the medium does not create the art. It is the mode through which the art is expressed."
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

Jonathan Cross

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 752
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2025, 05:00:51 am »

I have read and re-read the article, and it still isn‘t apparent to me what the headline is founded on.
It might make for interesting reading to run a survey of what draws people to this location today;...

Arc, I agree with the article.  Photography is not creative in itself, but it does give people the opportunity to be creative, just as e.g oil paint, words, music, and their associated tools so.  Yes, anyone can take a photo as millions do now with phones.  That does not mean that the results get a lasting reaction or stimulate emotion but they can.  Rob contributes to this forum with his new found efforts with a phone.  I may or may not like them, but I find them very interesting.

Rob, what draws people to this site?  In the days of Michale and Kevin, there was a mix of kit and examples. Michael had the advantage of being around when it was all new and rapidly developing.  There is now a plethora of kit, well able to help with most people's interests.  New iterations of phones come out every year and are not cheap. I am still happy with my iPone 12 pro, and do not think I wil replace it yet.  Loads of kit reviews, do not draw me to this site.  On the other hand, examples of the images that can be produced are far more interesting.   It can be like going to an art gallery to enjoy and be stimulated by the paintings, photographs, drawings etc. without the chaff of travelling. I will certainly be going to the the new Lee Miller exhibition at the Tate in London.  It is getting great reviews, and her talent shines through even if her images of the Second World War can be very disturbing.    I go to any Hockney exhibition; he is not afraid to try anything new as instanced by his iPad work.  I would like to go to the National Portrait gallery to learn more about the genre as the compsition and lighting can translate into photography and I would hope to learn.

In summary, what draws me to this site is others efforts.  I did like Kevin's series on individual photographers.

Jonathan
 
Logged
Jonathan in UK

Jonathan Cross

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 752
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2025, 05:04:59 am »

Please excuse my dyslexic fingers in my post above.  I pressed Post when I meant to press Preview!!

Jonathan

Logged
Jonathan in UK

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25118
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2025, 05:52:40 pm »

[quote author=Jonathan Cross link=topic=144930.msg1267386#

“Rob contributes to this forum with his new found efforts with a phone.  I may or may not like them, but I find them very interesting.”

That comment made me think.

The thought that came through was a surprise to me: I realised, having never thought deeply about it before, that I think that my own reaction to my work with the cellphone may be kinda similar to yours to what I do. It doesn’t give final images on the computer monitor that remind me much of my Nikon stuff - it would be a miracle for tiny sensors and lenses to be able to do so - but nonetheless, they do make me think along different lines, much as the switch from film to digital did.

Where I think this is taking me is here: film, now on a non-pro basis, pretty much ended my photography because of cost, but the advent of digital removed that obstacle and I started snapping again. Now, the cellphone alternative has come to the rescue where I had more or less given up again because of the combined problems of age, eye problems, equipment weight, the fear of getting mugged again and losing the Nikon with whatever lens was on it that day. (That I eventually took but one lens with me was not only because of the aforementioned problems, but because carting around more led to uncertainty. I somehow feel this ain’t an issue with a cellphone.)

So yes, I really do find it an interesting time for my photography, especially as I was never much interested in wide-angle lenses beyond 35mm (on 135 format cameras), and instead, the iPhone I have boasts no normal or long lens, in the traditional camera sense, the two lenses it has being wide and wider yet, forcing me to look at photos from an entirely new perspective.

I wisħ these things had existed, at today’s level of development, during my working years; that would have been interesting from a pro point of view.

Rob
« Last Edit: October 07, 2025, 04:17:19 am by Rob C »
Logged

tvalleau

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2025, 05:42:03 pm »

Sigh. The tool an artist uses does not determine whether  the resulting artwork can be considered art.  Is "The Pieta" not "art" because Michelangelo used a leather mallet instead of a copper one? Is oil painting "art" but watercolor not? "Oh, too bad: that would have been art if he had used a sable brush instead of camel hair."

Is all photography art? Of course not. Art is determined in the mind of the viewer, not the artist. An artwork  communicates and how well it succeeds at that is far more important, and independent of whatever tool was used to create it.

An instruction manual isn't War and Peace and not all writing is literature. Not all photography is art either, but some is.

Simple proof? If it's hanging in an art museum, it is ipso facto, art. Wasn't this subject brought to rest 75 years ago?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12525
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Photography Isn’t Creative
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2025, 01:29:23 pm »

I'm a bit late for the dinner in this discussion, but thought maybe I should contribute my two-cents worth. I think the field of photography is so diverse that unless one defines carefully what is the specific context of the term, it is not a terribly useful conversation. A lot of photography is not MEANT to be "artistic". Think medical imaging, forensics, pure documentation (e.g. pictures of ancient postage stamps for insurance purposes) and so on. Then there is what we call "fine art photography" - landscapes, portraiture, cityscapes and so on. In these contexts a camera and post-capture techniques are usually being deployed to make a statement about a scene. "Making the statement" in terms of form and content is the "art" because it has major elements of creativity in a number of ways I need not elaborate on a site like this one. If the title of this article and forum topic was meant to be provocative, well OK, it provoked - just enough to reflect on what we mean by "photography" and what we mean by "art". Once we've clarified the concepts, the debate, if there still were one, kind of evaporates.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: [1]   Go Up