Exercise 1.4 What is a photographer?

This is a discussion of the essay 'Photography and Photography and Artistic-Photography by Marius de Zayas available from http://www.camramirez.com/pdf/DI_Week6_PhotoAndArt.pdf. 

The article commences with a bold statement:

"Photography is not Art. It is not even an Art. Art is the expression of the conception of an idea. Photography is the plastic verification of a fact."

De Zayas wrote at a time when Realism was giving way to Modernism in Art. Roger Fry was one of the first to argue that Art has to be more than a simple imitation of reality; there is more to it that that:

 "If imitation is the sole purpose of the graphic arts, it is surprising that the works of such arts are ever looked upon as more than curiosities or ingenious toys." (Fry, 1937)

Art is the expression of emotions as defined by the formal arrangement of the work of art. We have to consider how the subject is being shown: a study of form rather than subject (Howells and Negreiros. 2012, p35). That is De Zayas' view too: 'nature inspires us in the idea. Art, through the imagination, represents that idea in order to produce emotions', he continues.

De Zayas argues that 'representation of Form' in Art subsumed imagination. Using some language that is far form politically correct nowadays, he contends that African cultures do not understand a representation of reality, but take from nature only that which impresses them as an expression of their imagination. 

Imagination is key to de Zayas: 'the principal law of Art' he terms it. Imagination is the combination of memory, judgement, and attention into new ideas or images. It leads the viewer away from the reality of Form, that, de Zayas contends, can be transcribed only by the means of the mechanical process of photography:

"Art presents to us what we may call the emotional or intellectual truth; photography the material truth".

Photography enables us to realise our own emotions whereas Art represents the emotions of the artist.  Art has developed the imagination; photography is 'the concrete representation of consummated facts.' Photography is not art in this perspective; however de Zayas qualifies the assertion thus:

"Photography is not Art, but photographs can be made to be Art."

Photography per se is 'evidence of reality' with the aim of finding the 'objectivity of form'. Artistic Photography uses that objectivity of form 'to express a preconceived idea in order to convey an emotion'. In simple terms Photography is objective and Artistic Photography subjective; the former seeks knowledge, the latter pleasure. De Zayas concludes that it is difficult to say which is the more important.

To a degree, de Zayas' essay is a function of when it was written. Photography was still in its infancy due largely to the cost of the equipment. Kodak cameras were about (the Brownie was introduced in 1900 (Wikipedia)), but not widespread; photography was hardly used yet as a tool in commerce and other areas of human endeavour. It was therefore relatively simple to conceive of a binary function for photography. De Zayas contrasts the work of Steichen as an artist ('carried to its highest point the expression of a system of representation') and Stieglitz as an 'experimentalist' who searches for 'the pure expression of the object'. But even in this period of relatively few professional photographers, it is difficult to see that photography fell so easily into two camps. Consider these two images, one by Stieglitz, the other by Steichen:

Stieglitz - image of urban life

Steichen The Flatiron

Categorising either of these photographs unquestionably as either 'Photography' or as 'Artistic Photography' in the framework of de Zayas is fraught with difficulty; arguably both images demonstrate aspects of the subjective and objective. 

And therein lies the dilemma with this simple binarism. There is really no true objectivity in  a photograph and there never was. There has always been subjectivity in choosing what picture to take, when and in what conditions; how to use the light, what exposure to use. 

And there is a second objection: why would a photographer ever wish to take a photograph that is purely an objective statement of what he or she sees through the viewfinder? Even a so called 'record shot' taken on a camera phone by the least knowledgeable photographer of a holiday scene or object of touristic interest  has some kind of function other than recording the objective presence of the subject within the view of the camera lens. There is an intrinsic 'I was thereness' contained within the shot; it might not be art but it does seek to appeal to our emotions, albeit at a very limited level. 

At a basic level therefore, the distinction between photography as an objective pursuit with no emotional response assumed by the viewer, and one that seeks such a response is too simplistic; it serves no definably useful purpose and I am unconvinced it ever did as different images could and can be viewed in different ways by different people at different times. What is and was 'representation of fact' to one person might evoke an artistic response in another.

In one sense, it is arguable that this discussion is more relevant today, simply because photography is used in so many ways whose main purpose is not to evoke an emotional response: journalism, advertising, forensics, and fashion to mention a few. The distinction then becomes one of function: if the purpose of an image is not artistic, by definition it cannot be artistic. But that is not to say that, for example, images of females taken now on catwalks may not be viewed as artistic in the future. The images of 1930s and 1940s New York street crime taken by Arthur Fellig (aka Weegee) are shown frequently in galleries and are said to have influenced film noir (Carlson, 2012). Does it matter whether these images are viewed as 'Art' or just excellent and chilling records of happenings on the streets? 'Art' or 'not Art' becomes a rather meaningless distinction devoid of purpose.

Yet there is surely something contemporary in the distinction of an image whose primary purpose is to evoke an emotional response and one that is not. Curiously perhaps, de Zayas' thesis may have more relevance now than over a century ago simply because there are so many more photographic practitioners. Broadly I suggest three categories:

• Casual photographers - the vast majority who scarcely use any of the functionality of their phones whether DSLR, bridge, or camera. Crabbe (2013) discusses whether DSLRs are being replaced by camera phones; A post on mirrorless cameras argues that DSLRs are just too complicated for most of us;
• Professional photographers who use DSLRs and other (mainly lighting) equipment for professional reasons: commercial photography, fashion, sports, journalism, forensics;
• Professional and keen amateur photographers whose main aim is to evoke some kind of positive emotional response in their work. These may either be single images (typified by the 'beach at sunset' image below) or as photobooks. Often the works are submitted for competition or for gallery exposure.

David Gilliver West Coast at Sunset. This image is typical of the genre of colourful sunset with deliberately artificially created smoothness of waves - the classic 'milky effect'. Intended as wallpaper for computer or print version.

Although there is some overlap (professional photographers will often submit work for artistic purposes and some photography - notably journalistic such as Weegee's work above - becomes culturally artistic by dint of recognition from peers or others) the final category is what we could usefully call Artistic Photography today; perhaps the key difference adduced today is that the 'artistic' tag is specifically defined by purpose rather than result; what is the photographer seeking to achieve. If the main purposes is aesthetic, then the tag @Artistic Photography' seems appropriate. The main purpose behind photographs taken by professionals in the second category is more akin to de Zayas' 'concrete representation of consummated facts'; the technical qualities of the result are more important than the aesthetic.

It should be emphasised that the distinction is not binary - aesthetic photographs like the above require technical skill as well as an artistic purpose. Further, it may legitimately be queried whether defining photography in these ways is useful given the fluidity of views of what constitutes 'Art'. There are some, such as Scruton, who argue that photography can never be art because the beauty one might see in a photograph is of the subject itself whereas a painting may be beautiful, 'even when it represents an ugly thing'. (Scruton, 1984). Photography in this view is 'simply a medium through which we view the natural world' (Howells and Negreiros, ibid, p191).

This argument seems too simplistic and does little justice to the practitioners in the third category. There is more to a photograph than the subject-matter: the photographer has to take choices in the way the subject is presented in the image: lighting, aperture, shutter speed, composition, and post processing are all variables that permit an individualistic approach to the way the subject is presented. Indeed the subject-matter itself may be viewed as an artistic choice particularly if themed in photobook style. Warburton (1995) argues that:

"It is only in a series of photographs that a photographer's choices can be made clear."

This is an argument to say that even subject-matter that is not photographed in an individualistic aesthetic style can be viewed as artistic by considering the context of the subject in relation to similar images of the photographer.

References:

Carlson, Jen (2012) Weegee's Grisly Crime Scene Photos From 1930s and 1940s New York. Available from http://gothamist.com/2012/01/04/grisly_crime_scene_photos_from_1930.php#photo-1. Accessed on 9 February 2016.

Crabbe (2013) Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?'. Available from http://connect.dpreview.com/post/8533710022/consumer-dslr-cameras-dead-in-5-years. Accessed on 11 February 2016.


Fry, Roger (1937), An Essay in Aesthetics, in Vision and Design. Pelican Books. Quoted in Howells and Negreiros (2012),  Visual Culture. Polity Press. Cambridge.

Howells, Richard and Negreiros, Joaquim (2012),  Visual Culture. Polity Press. Cambridge

Scruton, Roger (1984) The Aesthetic Understanding. Methuen. London

Warburton, Nigel (1995) Individual Style in Photographic Art in Alex Neil and Aaron Ridley (eds) Arguing about Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (1995). Routledge. London.