I know that I already wrote about the theme of whether photography is an art.
Nevertheless, I often have doubts about it. When I have doubts, many proofs are coming into my head that, photography is, indeed, an art. Why do I doubt whether photography is an art? I do it because photography is, in most cases, only reflecting the cut of reality. This reality is not always odd. Nevertheless, I believe that reality is stranger than fiction. Thus, it is the task for the artist-photographer to modify the picture to the level that it could be seen more strangely than reality.
Is that mean that I use Adobe Photoshop to develop my pictures and that my intervention to the photo is close to graphic interference?
No. I use Adobe Lightroom to edit my photographs. The fact is that this software provides possibilities to develop pictures on the same level (not higher!) as the classic darkroom. I think that during the developing photographs, we can spot probably the most accurate process of that artist is being born. Of course, we all should remember that the initial phase of taking pictures is also crucial. When we compose the image, later on, while developing, we have a more natural way to create a work of art.
Another hint and prove that photography is an art provided me an episode from Stanley Kubrick’s life.
When in 1945, young Kubrick joined Herman Getter’s art class at Taft, he told the teacher he was a photographer. He added that he did not draw or paint. Herman Getter replied that “Well, that’s an art.” I think that we should listen to the people who were teaching Stanley Kubrick. Undoubtedly, in many aspects of art creating, they were right.
To summarize, even if I sometimes possess doubts if photography is an art, I try to remind all things written above.
