If art’s purpose is to evoke an emotional response, then why shouldn’t photography be considered as art? Deborah Hughes provokes our thoughts on this extremely sensitive subject
In late 2014, a couple of articles in The Guardian exhumed the previously buried debate over whether photography should be considered art, particularly when viewed side-by-side with the great painters of the past or even when viewed alone on a gallery wall. A follow-up article by the same author was written in response to an image of the overly photographed Antelope Canyon in Arizona, which purportedly sold for $6.5 million.
A counterpoint article in the same periodical was written soon thereafter providing examples of photographers who through their photographic artistry evoke an emotional response in the viewer, gallery or no gallery, high price tag or not. The counterpoint’s author summed up photography’s place in art as the expression and communication of the basic essence of our humanity beyond and regardless of taste, aesthetics, personal preference, the ubiquity of digital images and advanced technology of imaging devices, or the size of an artist’s or collector’s pocket book. An astute reader noted in the comments of this article that the writer of the first two articles had …
Read this and many more articles in High Definition inside Issue 60 of Landscape Photography Magazine.