but, is it art?

Today, in my photo history class, we were briefly discussing the long-debated subject of photography as an art.

In the early 20th century, more and more people were using cameras. The common man had access to cameras, like George Eastman’s brownie. Photographs were mainly a document… to capture scenes, landscapes, objects. But now, people were starting to express themselves through photography. We were seeing found objects from new perspectives. Photo montages rose in popularity.

But was this art? Many debated (and some still do) that photography was just a form of documenting. If it resembled art, it was only in the eye of the beholder, because the photograph was only a form of expression from the person who created the image.

IMHO, I think that’s enough justification for a photograph to be considered art.

What do you think? Is photography really an art? Is it mechanics or science or documentation? I think it’s all of the above.

And I’m gonna continue shooting pictures as long as I can.

Published by


I made this.

0 thoughts on “but, is it art?”

  1. of course it is

    recent modern art in itself challenges what is art. so you can reason that to “appreciate” and “understand” art you have to always keep your mind open to not what art is but what art can be

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *