Photography: still a valuable medium in its own right?

Listen to some of the Cafe Artistique discussion that took place: www.axisweb.org/cafeartistique And also see Joe Mawson's response to the discussion. Joe recreated a photograph originally made by Alex Hartley.

It is important for artists to register changes in our general sensibility which happen as the priorities among media change. Photography, and more recently, digital photography is still altering the world. While this is still news we may need to keep some sense of what it is up to - so as not to be caught missing something. My most recent stuff has been about photgraphing painting - though when I think properly, it has always been about that. Hence, for me, the medium of photography is a new tool, (ie only a hundred years old) and I want to keep an eye on it as a separate instrument.

I think the question itself raises confusion before even start of a discussion.Many artists have mixed artistic backgrounds; I don’t see the reason of creating any kind of division.Irrespective of an attempt to regulate or define this, there are many differences between them.The phrase ‘artists who use photographs’ is ambiguous use of words.Does it mean an artist who use photographs for his/her practice or does it means an artist who can photograph and use photography as primary medium?After getting my BA (painting/drawing), I was trained as a commercial photographer by my friend, who is a professional photographer. However, the experience didn’t make me commercial photographer but the skills I’ve gathered widened my practice.I define myself as an artist/photographer. For me, taking a photo is a serious act of communication, which should be done with a thought. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs to be planned vigorously because it is always good to leave a room for a surprise.

In anwser to the question is photography a unique medium ,no it is just a recording tool like drawing for poeple who prefer to record that way. It is by the nature of its mechanical property avery poor recorder and very inferior to drawing and always will be, unfortunately it has been exalted beyond its worth as a meduim because of its ease of use . It certainly dosnt realy registar as an art form at all in its own right.

Is it photography or painting if one uses a combination of the two ?

This discussion seems very arbitrary. Of course photography is a distinct medium in art.

Photography is actually many distinct media, corresponding to artists' different intentions in using photography. As mentioned by other posters, an artist may merely use photography to record (usually transient) work in other media, in which case the photograph is the final product of the art, but the concept conveyed is more important than technical issues. At the opposite extreme, photography can be merely a technical exercise, a way of reproducing and drawing attention to beauty (or ugliness) in the world. In between those two are a plethora of other reasons for using photography, from questioning the nature of representation through documenting the world around us to meta-photography, or photography about photography.

I really do think that photography is photography, painting is painting, and sculpture is sculpture. I find the painting and sculpture of Cy Twombly endlessly fascinating; however, I find that the photographs of Cy Twombly are a total waste of time, as documentery items, as worthy photographs and as luxury items. (see recent entrepreneurial volume of photos approx. £82.) A great photographer is an opportunistic genius like Henri Cartier- Bresson who also did paintings but didn't confuse them with photographs or vice verca. Out of focus is not art. Neither is in-focus.

I am sorry but I beg to differ with your comment. If you get time, have a look at a book by Susan Sontag titled 'On Photography'. You might change your mind, you might not, that is not my aim. However, photography is, has been a form of art for a very long time. It has its own theory, dedicated curators/theorists, historians, practicing artist/photographers all over the world. There is always business or commercial side to any form of art, in 'photography', there are strands such as; commercial photography, photography for publishing industry etc.

I am sorry but I beg to differ with your comment. If you get time, have a look at a book by Susan Sontag titled 'On Photography'. You might change your mind, you might not, that is not my aim. However, photography is, has been a form of art for a very long time. It has its own theory, dedicated curators/theorists, historians, practicing artist/photographers all over the world. There is always business or commercial side to any form of art, in 'photography', there are strands such as; commercial photography, photography for publishing industry etc.

Obviously, photography is still somehow distinguished from other media used in contemporary art. There are fine art and photography departments/classes, photography galleries and art galleries. There is a photography discourse, referencing mainly photography, separate from a general contemporary fine art discourse. Why that? I am not quite sure, probably because of it's relatively short history. Photography comes as Fine Art and Applied Art, unlike sculpture and painting. The same goes for video and so called new media art. Contemporary art though uses photography as any other medium. Being trained as a photographer, followed by an MA in Fine Art, I'd say there is no "photography" but rather "photographies". Depending on its context it raises and answers different questions. I am also not quite sure about what to do with that. Personally I feel out of place in the photography discourse, but am still very interested in many questions specific to photography.

Of course photography could be considered at this day and age a fine art medium within in the visual arts. It serves the pretty much the same purpose as a painting can hold both subjectively and conceptually or even structurally. Although, In my opinion, the use of a photographic medium can and should be categorised into how the photographer has gone about making the work. For example; digital photography, dark room, photo manipulation etc... You wouldn't say that Julie Rrap's "Overstepping" (2001) is an upfront photograph of a model's feet. It has obviously had some sort of photo manipulation applied to the original image. While Destiny Deacon's "Border Patrol" (2005) is a candid 'snap' photograph of a situation, therefore maybe being seen as just a digital photograph.

Photography could be considered at this day and age as a fine art medium in the Visual Arts. It serves pretty much the same purpose as a painting can hold subjectively structurally and conceptually Although In my opinion the use of a photographic medium can and should be categorised into how the photographer has gone about making the work For example digital photograph dark room photo manipulation... You wouldn't say that Julie Rraps Overstepping 2001 is an upfront photograph of a model's feet. It has obviously had some sort of photo manipulation applied to the original image. While Destiny Deacons Border Patrol 2005 is a candid snap photograph of a situation therefore maybe being seen as just a digital photograph Also, in my opinion, when one uses the combination of both painting and photography, it can be seen as classic mixed media.

But What if we were to turn the tables and ask the opposite? What if an artist creates an image, scans it into the computer and works on it digitally through maybe Photoshop? is the final product still seen as mixed media? or is it seen as a digital piece?

If the final artwork is created by scanning and using photoshop it is still photography. That is the kind of photography that does not interest me as much but it is still photography. John Szarkowski wrote a book Windows and Mirrors and is the best account yet of these two sides of photography:one a straight objective view of the world and one a more subjective view. I prefer the discovery through documentary photography of previously unseen relationships and visual phenomenon.

I am looking forward to reading where this discussion takes us at 2 p.m. Unfortunately I have an appointment at that time so I will not be able to participate. In any case I believe the camera is another tool like a pencil or brush. It describes light, texture, form, content and expression better than any other medium in my opinion. That does not mean that photographs are better than other art forms. It makes it harder to to produce art using straight or windows photography because the photographer has to deal with the real world and cannot erase or change what is in the final image unless it is a mirror or intervened photographic process as described by photoshop ot digital enhancement.

In answer to the discussion whether there should be as a distinct medium I believe it is helpful to separate window, straight or unmanipulated imagery from mirror or interventionist imagery (either by darkroom, photoshop, mixed media). The exponents of straight or documentary photography are from Eugene Atget through Walker Evans and Henry Cartier- Bresson to Robert Frank, Diane Arbus, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Sebastiao Salgado, William Eggleston, Stephen Shore........The exponents of the alternative subjective approach are Andy Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, Duane Michals, Minor White, Robert Mapplethorpe, Cindy Sherman. This is, I hope, a useful list of the two distinctly different approaches to photography. If you like I can see that we could take this discussion further.....one thought I have is this. Figurative or landscape painting could be seen as closer to "window" photography whereas abstract, collage or mixed media is closer to "mirror" photography.

Should there be a distinction between photographers and artists who use photographs? And if so, who should make that distinction? My final contribution to this discussion is that there should only be a distinction as to what is a worthwhile contribution to visual art and what is not. There are vast numbers of two dimensional images. Photographs, however they are made, are part of that vast range of visual art. I do not separate them by medium or method. I very strongly believe is that there ought to be far more rigorous critical separation by examination of the quality of the final product in form and content to determine if the work contributes to our knowlege and development of art and whether it tells us more about the human condition.

Sadly there is far too much visual work which falls far below the standard of quality in content, form and presentation. It is very easy to make images these days without a lot of thought as to the content or meaning. This is exacerbated now by the ability of anyone to press a button, be sensational or outrageous and sell it for a vast sum of money. I would like to see a far more critical appreciation based on the history of the medium, the subject matter in form and content and the integrity of the artist.

Photographic images help the viewer to see the world around them in all its glory or horror, and help us to question our very self and our world. I work as a creative professional, photographer and artist and have sold my work to private clients, and businesses. Should the art world have recognised graphic design as an art form back at the start of the 20th Century? Of course it should. I create my own unique brand of photographic art using digital photography and image manipulation. My work is based on the world around us, which is transformed into something captivating and new. I have a method and a story behind each of my works. There are so many arguments caused when people fail to see art in its entirety, and try to denounce a new medium. Its just backward thinking in my view. Pioneers of photography are seen as artistic/creative geniuses by many.

Having read the earlier contributions, there seems to be an undue obsession with categorisation. Of course a camera is a tool just like a pencil, a hammer or a computer. And artists are free to make use of whatever tools are available to them to make art. Photography has been used as a tool by artists ever since its 19th century origins, and photographs have been accepted "as" art at least since the 1930's. In the contemporary context very few artists restrict themselves to one medium, so photography is often used as one element in a practice that might also include many other processes, even within the same work.

A dilemma, especially today, is that of publishing. Anyone can publish anything on the internet, and photography is a particular victim of that facility. But perhaps this is also a good thing as the emphasis is being laid on the content of a photograph rather than its aesthetics – as developed by Walker-Evans, Cartier-Bresson et al a very long time ago now. But artists in particular have been very good at redefining what photography is, and does.

Art is an expression of the human mind, be it through paint, sculpture, dance, sound, photography etc. I use all kinds of media to produce the work I do, most of the time these creations do not last, thankfully photography can help to capture a moment, for me the moment photography captures is the moment I want to keep, such as when the work was lit in a specific way, viewed from a certain angle, was new and un-damaged or something was happening that would not last or ever be the same again.

I am very interested in this debate for a number of reasons. I also would like to take this opportunity to ask some advice from the photography professionals. After completing my BA in Fine art a few years ago i am now looking to doing an MA. I am particularly interested in the photography MA at the Royal College of Art. But what i wanted to know or was concerned about with this i felt tied into the debate here. How does a MA in photography fit into a broad contemporary fine art practice. Does anyone know anything about the royal college photography MA how it is taught and run and what the photography emphasis is on. i.e can you work in installation/ film/ and mixed media on this course as so many artist now do work in an inter-disciplinary way. I for one believe that photography is an important medium and can be an artistic outcome or practice in its own right, i do however use it as part of my multi-disciplinary practice.

Indeed, and that is photography's unique quality - that it represents something that undeniably happened (manipulation of photographs simply plays with this idea). It is of course a tool which can be played with like any other, and in that sense is a fine art medium. But its edge is that it is a document of something. So, the other question is: is there a place for galleries which are only for photographs? which implies there should also be etching galleries, etc. (which I know there are to a great extent). Is it helpful to categorise like this? Or is it just for the buyers/collectors?

Photography is loaded with a history since the 19th century and is in extricably linked to modernism in that way. So the decision to use photography as a process comes with so many other references to industrialism, art history, politics and so on all the way up to the image wars of the last 7 years. The use of photography then, is a conceptual decision like any other. Medium specificity, throws up a whole new debate. The work will always reference its own making. To discuss 'photography' alone, we need to consider what photography is in a contemporary context. Marshall McLuhan did tell us that "the medium is the message" after all.

I think that dissemination of photographic imagery, how it surrounds us all the time, comes to define the ways photographic work can operate. Photography is used in our culture to define what is real, wage wars and share information. The world makes a spectacle of itself in that way, constructing histories, fictions and myths in a 'global village'. In that way photography in art practice is really able to reference the 'real' world. Art practice exists in the world, as do art objects. There is currency of photographs outside of art discourse that painting and drawing just won't have. Its a unique medium then, because it is able to operate within a visual language we encounter every day. Photography in art practice can be quite powerful, and there's certainly nothing arbitrary, or mechanical about using it.

My understanding of the RCA course is that it supports the kind of multi-disciplinary approach that you're talking about. Judging from the work produced by recent graduates they seem to go for photography focused but not necessarily exclusively photographic practices...

Yes, and the point made earlier by Sabine is important here, when she usefully referred to "photographies" rather than "photography". Context is all. And part of the context is of course the intention of the "artist" (or "photographer"). It's not helpful to talk about either art or photography as if they mean something singular and coherent, as if we can guarantee a shared understanding of the terms.

So does the fact most artists work across a range of disciplines help to blur the line between those disciplines? - and focus on the message over and above the medium?

For me, yes. I am much more interested in what something "says" or the affect (and effect) it has than I am in how it is made. .... recognising of course that how it is made is inevitably a part of what it "says" and the effect it has!

Of course, in that way the use of a medium becomes part of the conceptual framework. The medium becomes part of the message as much as the subject. Medium is inextricably linked to the conceptual framework of the whole. The artist working across disciplines is building a practice that explores concepts, drawing on media to realise that work. I studied at The University of Leeds, a large focus on practice is to discourage medium specificity, the School is much more about discourse. An ideas led practice is going to always blur the lines between disciplines and in someways ignore the history of a medium in favor of seeing how it can operate within the structure of a specific work. With my own practice, the inter disciplinary nature always acknowledges a kind of apathy in my methodologies. I realised from the discussion in October, I don't have the same relationship to the medium as those who define themselves as 'Photographers' have.

The physical barrier between photography and art, is technology, the camera. We are ‘recording’, because what defines art is ‘transmission’. From the creative idea, to the hands which create it as a piece of art, painting, print or sculpture. It is this signal, this message, this co-ordination, which is essential in conveying the creative idea to the finished work. The camera cannot be a brush or burin or chisel, because what the camera can does is point. It cannot be controlled by direct contact of finesse or dexterity and include minute changes of line form or colour as a work progresses. But, do not under estimate the power of ‘pointing’ because this is an action that can bring evidence of injustice and intolerance to a vast audience in a way that is easily understood...

Although photography cannot be fine art this in no way diminishes its stature. It is an immensely powerful medium creating an emotional response, anger, sorrow, nostalgia and joy. It is creative, of course it is, especially when you know that you have captured something of great satisfaction by a single click. The contradiction is, photographers are forever seeking to be labelled as ‘Artists’, when they should be proud of the fact that they are exponents of a discipline that has a tremendous responsibility. Recording, in real time, of the visual history of humanity. Both good and bad.

It is important to differentiate between photography as recorded image of the temporal and that of image as manipulated sudo-mechanised artwork. The skill in being adept at combining both of these to create a work that has the same validity as any other art medium is something of a rarity. And it is a skill, both a craft based skill of machine manipulation and a creative process, the photographer/artist as interpreter of the trope, the image and the potential outcomes. Digital media has made this all the more indistinct and it is generally decried as being too immediate and disposable. The very fact that the discipline has suddenly acquired a whole new aspect of technical difficulty in terms of printed image quality or image manipulation along with an infinite editing potential (unlike the conventional print which has a finite series of manipulation stages), asks more of us as artists. It surely demands re-evaluation.

from reading the posts above there seems to be a general consensus and need to define, and even more so to classify, photography, the photographic practice and photographers in contrast/comparison to art, artistic practice and artists. where do they cross over?("i define my self as an artist/photographer"post3) how do they over lap? how do we classify images as photographs, how do we classify practices as photographic?

is scanning a photographic practice, there are those that dont recognize digital photography as 'real' photography, just like those before them that didn't recognize photography as an art- "It is by the nature of its mechanical property avery poor recorder and very inferior to drawing and always will be" post4. people "want to keep an eye on it"(post2), it is suspect, this thing is constantly in flux as is our understanding and acceptance of it too. How is photography, as a discriminated medium, responding to new media? Many questions can be raised regarding photography's or photographies mechanics or its conceptual capabilities (the ghost inside the machine) but again we would fall in to the trap of classification, which on this page range from the more traditional to the truly postmodern ("photography is photography" post8).

"photography is, has been a form of art for a very long time"post9, when was it elevated from a trade to the sacrilegious realm of art. i agree with Dr. Horton that there seems to be an "undue obsession with categorisation" post21. this has been one of the defining characteristics or 'artists' discourse in the west, where bickering has prevailed for almost two and a half millennia (from Plato to post8). Even Dr. Horton, however, still makes a distinction, un-implicitly, between artists and _____? Here i feel we need to structure the primary question to suit this debate better: Should there be a distinction between artists and _____? And if so, why and on what grounds?

Its true that it is hard to answer such a question with out first establishing what to fill the blank space with, which again leeds us to classifying the other. this question could be approached by asking what makes an artist, an elite, group who hold probably the most mystic-cultural capital in society, the largest unregulated market. why has no avant-guarde challenged this power structure with out it self gaining cultural capital and forming further elitist groups? photography seemed to have the means of changing these power structures and democratizing art and riding us of its "aura", where has it gone wrong? how has the economic-gene in 'art' survived not only photography but net.art? are artists & Co. the last aristocrats?

just a side note to Stuart Haden's post: I'd like to suggest a different definition, where "window" stands for an understanding of photography where through the photograph, the viewer seems to look straight at the world, like through an open window, without any interference. The "mirror" photograph instead reminds you of it being a photograph you're looking at and not the world. The photograph itself creates this awareness of the medium. How that is done doesn't seem of any importance to me, both can be straight photgraphs or manipulated ones. Interesting enough I see many artists working with photography in the "window" approach, not reflecting the medium in their work but using it as mere documentation.

That is exactly the definition I meant to imply and one that John Szarkowski uses. "Window" photography is, as you correctly write, like looking through a window frame. "Mirror" photography is, as the name implies, a reflection of the artist's belief and that view draws more attention to the surface of the photograph so one is more conscious of the medium. Another way of interpreting these two approaches might be better described if the "window" method is seen as exploring the real world and the "mirror" method as one of romantic self expression where the photographer interprets the world from his or her understanding.Of course, this is simplistic and the results do not fall neatly into "window" or "mirror" divisions or motives.

Each photographer implicitly and explicitly produces work which describes these two approaches to a lesser or greater degree. The central concern or goal is to create beauty and thereby make sense of the visual world and, through integrity, better describe our ideals and how we understand our existence. That surely is why photography is another distinct branch of art like drawing, painting, sculpture, collage, literature, performance (theatre) or sound (music)and why it should be seen as one aspect of the whole art practice and the brush, pencil or a knife, like a camera, are only tools in the pursuit of artistic work.

Well Mr. Henry and Dr. Horton, what conclusions have you made about the discussion you led? Should it be seen as a distinct medium? Is it separate from other artworks or another branch of fine art? I am intrigued to know your thoughts and conclusions and even why you raised the questions in the first place. Please tell us. I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear a summary of your conclusions. As an afterthought I do not consider photoshop to be photography. To me that is collage making and any transformation through digital enhancement is not dealing with the existing reality. Soon 3D imaging & holograms will be available and we will be able to walk around a piece of transferred reality in the gallery. Many artists use video & film which is moving photography. It all has the potential to be art. You both presumably decide and ultimately have the power to say what is art and what is not and I am very keen to know your judgement on these matters. What are your views?