Is Photography Really Art?

By definition, yes it is

“A Lime on the Side” (© Mark Ali)

This is a bit of a loaded topic. Anytime you mention the definition of “art”, controversy abounds. It means different things to different people.

So, let’s just jump right into it, shall we?

Here’s one multi-part definition of “art” from Merriam-Webster.com (2024):

• skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
• a branch of learning (e.g., the liberal arts)
• an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
• the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
• decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

So, there you have it.

Let’s take them one at a time, and we’ll see how this goes…

“Newport Flower” (© Mark Ali)

“Skill Acquired by Experience, Study, or Observation”

Does photography require skill?

You betcha.

Perhaps less than it used to, given all the automatic features of cameras these days. Most will automatically choose your exposure settings, automatically focus, and even auto-magically spruce up your image (if you shoot a JPEG).

Some will even make coffee in the morning.

I’m kidding, of course (though the new Nikons are pretty impressive — there might be a coffee-making model).

But that doesn’t mean skill isn’t required. Despite all those auto features, a camera in the hands of a user who doesn’t know what they’re doing is essentially an expensive snapshot-maker.

Great photography is achieved through the skilled use of a camera and lens, with a good understanding of the key aspects of light, exposure, focus, depth of field, composition, color theory, etc., etc., etc.

You get my point. Anyone can grab snapshots. You’ve got to know what you’re doing to create art with a camera, at least to some degree.