Today, I will be examining the article titled "Why Photography Isn’t Art Given One Key Assumption" by Ibn Ruqeyeh (2015). The article presents a controversial viewpoint that challenges the classification of photography as an art form. I must acknowledge my bias in this matter as someone who deeply appreciates photography as an art form and has pursued digital photography classes during my academic tenure.
According to the article, contemporary aesthetics often assesses the artistic value of an object by examining its capacity for representation. Representation refers to the conveyance of ideas and emotions through the inherent properties of a work. The article quotes philosopher Roger Scruton, who posits that representation is an essential quality for all artistic mediums. Scruton argues that if a medium lacks the ability to represent, it cannot produce art. To determine whether a medium can be utilized to create art, one must ask whether it allows for the production of representations. If the answer is affirmative, the medium can be employed for artistic purposes; if not, it cannot (Ibn Ruqeyeh, 2015). As stated in the article, "The issue with photography as Scruton conceives it is that it cannot represent" (Ibn Ruqeyeh, 2015).
However, I firmly disagree with this ideology. Photography, in its various forms, undeniably possesses the capacity for representation that extends beyond the limitations of language. It has the unique ability to convey messages and evoke emotions that words may struggle to articulate. If we were to accept this argument, it would imply that film and cinema, as mediums of artistic expression, are devoid of the ability to represent. Such a notion is difficult for me to accept, given the profound impact these mediums have had on our artistic and cultural landscape.
The article further suggests that while photographs do represent to some extent, certain edits made by photographers generate viewer interest in the image itself. Scruton asserts that these edits are merely artistic techniques borrowed from painting, and the pure photographic medium cannot claim them as its own. I can understand, to some degree, the perspective of Scruton and those who hold a similar view. At face value, a photograph taken of a subject may not possess inherent uniqueness, as anyone else can capture an image of the exact same thing. However, it is the photographer's distinctive artistic vision and interpretation that bestows individuality upon the photograph. The images I have included below exemplify the transformative power of personal artistic vision within photography, elevating it to the realm of art.
In conclusion, I respectfully challenge the notion put forth in the article that argues against photography being considered an art form. Photography encompasses diverse forms of representation that transcend the limitations of language. While a photograph of a subject may lack inherent uniqueness, it is the photographer's artistic vision and interpretation that imbue the image with distinctiveness, transforming it into art.
Comments