Photography has a confusing and complicated history. Photography’s origins lie within both science and art – perfected and developed by artists and scientists alike. With this said, what is photography? A science or an art? Make an argument for both a science and an art. Then decide if photography is predominantly more art or science.
Photography is science in that it's a very technical process that, in its early days, required knowledge of chemistry to create. The process of developing an image, or using a camera, is definitely a scientific process. It can be repeated over and over again, and you can follow a formula to properly execute it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it takes an artistic mind to create photographs that are actually relevant and interesting to look at. Anyone can learn how to develop a picture, but only a few know how to actually take a picture and make it worth something more than just a piece of paper. The camera is merely a tool for the artist to use – it is what’s in his/her mind that actually makes the photograph “speak,” if you will.
Basically, photography is a science, but good photography is both science and art. You can’t have one without the other.
I think Photography now is primarily an art now. Most people don’t go to a photo shoot thinking they are scientists because everything is digital. Some people who still develop their own pictures may think this way. Although before digital cameras were invented photography was as much chemistry as it is an art. This is because of the process it took to develop the photographs was very intricate. I would say that photography itself is an art because that is what it has been formed into over its many years of progression. Mostly though photograph is an art.
ReplyDeleteAs a artist there are many different views on photography whether or not it is a science or a art, from my stand point I think that photography is a art for the fact that, it is “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance”. This means that you are trying to find the beauty in something by expressing it through your skill’s and technique’s. in like manner you are using a camera and your visual mind to conduct something that you think is beautiful or appealing to your mind, and capturing through a peep hole. On the other hand, a lot of people may think that photography is science , but I don’t. this is because when I think of science it has to do with chemicals and balancing equations. According to the definition it is facts or truths figured out through mathematic equations, for the most part in some ways u can consider if science because it is knowledge of knowing what’s beautiful, but its not something you can use equations to solve.
ReplyDeleteThe line between photography being an art or science seems like a very artifical line. It all comes down to the audience you ask, which you're bound to get many different opinions. Instead of explaining differences between the two, i think art and science both use photography for the same reason. The camera is, basically, an artificial retina. Scientists use it as a tool of observation, which is likewise in the art world. Artist's use photography as an observation tool, only in a more creative sense. I think photography started out as a scientific achievement, especially when the x-ray came out. The reason as to why i say photography is a science, is because the creation of it involved endless hours of mathematics, statistics, research & development, along with chemist's..many of which died in the process. But i can counteract that argument by saying that, likewise, there's an even bigger world to photography on the art side. Artists over the years, took over the science of photography, so while the invention of photo's might be due to science, the art world definitely made it their own.
ReplyDelete-tyler
Photography is a science and an art. The Scientific aspects of photography are the camera and the invention of photography. Johann Heinrich Schulz discovered the silver nitrate darkened upon exposure to light in seventeen twenty seven. From this discovery photograms were created. Photographic plates preceded the development of photographic film as a means of photography. The physicist from France named joseph nicephore niepce made the first negative on paper in eighteen sixteen. He then creates the first known photograph on metal. Louis Daguerre invented to photographic process in eighteen thirty nine in which a picture on silver surface sensitized iodine was developed by exposure to mercury. Then there is the art aspect of photography. It is not simply a point and shoot process. It can be if you want to take a great chance of them turning out like crap. One should set the camera up for a good picture. There are many compositional rules and what not that one can follow to help take a better photograph.
ReplyDeleteI think that photography is a combination of both photography and art. The process of producing a photograph is a science. The final product is art. It is something that both scientists and artists have interests in. Behind the scenes of a photo shoot is strictly science. The building of cameras, the lighting, and developing the pictures are all part of science. Setting up a successful picture takes artistic vision. Knowing how to edit the picture once taken takes a skilled artist. I think when photography was first invented it was meant to be an art form, but it took science to get it started. To me, photography is mainly art. With the invention of digital cameras, the need for science for most photographers is no longer needed because film does not need to be developed; you just upload the pictures straight to the computer for editing. Photography used to be a science, but today it is definitely an art.
ReplyDeletePhotography is one of the most influential styles in society today. As for being a science, it comes from the camera itself and the mechanics. Whether it comes from how it works or takes an image, the big picture is still pertaining to science as a whole and how it breaks down. Science is in everything but you don’t really realize such. Although to me, I definitely would say that art is not only the sole impact on photography, but the most important technique available and the most predominant over all. Without that creativity or such notions, the art and images would lack the potential in the first place. So all in all, photography takes all art into a new form.
ReplyDeleteart is normaly described as expressing yourself and showing who you are by using any kind of media or technique, from music to painting when we put what we bealive in into ouw work it becomes art it doesnt matter how ugly or pretty it is if it is done as art it will always have an inner beauty, this is why i think photography is an art because it is an expansion of who you are, but at the same time it is an art that is possible through science so it is always a combination of both and never just one, because without the science we cant take pictures but without the meaning given to the photos well.... the pictures have no meaning
ReplyDeletePhotography is neither science nor an art form. It is a string of complicated coincidences. It was science that first created photography. Chemists and scientists came together to create something groundbreaking: a permanent image of a real life event. But then the artists took over. They messed with the chemicals to make images more blue or more red. They took pictures of everything in the world and because it's never been done before, it can be called art. Now everywhere from the skylines to the back alleys and all the people in between are photographed, so what more is there to take pictures of? This is where photography turned into coincidence. There are still artists out there taking the same pictures over and over again, but the new ones are more interesting. The pictures are taken at the right place at the right time. They are pictures of people falling off ladders or wild animals doing something outside the norm. These are the pictures that are racy and interesting. These are the pictures that everyone wants to see. These are the moments that are the hardest to capture.
ReplyDeletephotography is both a science and art. its science in the sense of developing photos with all the chemicals and light. but in itself i think photography is an art more the actual action of taking a photo is easy but taking a great photo that captures peoples attention is a work of art just like a sculpture any one can make something out of play dough but to be like micael angelo takes talent. so photography takes know what makes a good picture and getting to the right place and the right time its just as much luck as it is talent but to be a photographer takes a lot more then just taking a picture.
ReplyDeleteEditing in photography is a very important thing, but there is such a thing as to much of a good thing. editing is meant to fix a photo not completely make a new photo. If you change a phto to a point that the image is not even recongnisable that is bad too. I think it's wrong to edit image like celebrities because it just makes normal everyday people feel bad and insecure about themselves. The media make people such as celebs look like god comared to us normal people. why sould we all change ourselves that much anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think photography is both an art and science, but more so an art. Art takes a type of skill where you need to be very open and ready to express yourself. you also get to be an original person with almost no guide lines. it is a science beacause you need to ahve you angles and plan out things with great detail. As a science you dont get to be as original and expressive which is a downer.
ReplyDelete