depending on the photographer a picture/photograph can be much more than a simple record of reality

John Campbell wow :)

I am a painter and a photographer. And yes of course photography is an art. But painting is a whole other monster. I think photography is a much “easier” art form. I mean yeah you go out one night catch an amazing picture, and boom you now have a masterpiece. I’d say it took me about a month of practice with photoshop and learning the settings to take great pics that look professional. With painting, it took me years, a decade to get this good.

Thanks!!

Moses :))

Tim Heubeck :))

Vernon Nash :))

Paul Warren :))

Juan Medina :))

Brian Richman Thanks Brian

Thank YOU!

***** barely, at the end of the day anything that can be appreciated is art. That doesn't mean it's skillful, but it is art. I know people who paint based on photographs, to me that is skill, not art, it's simply a dull replication.

***** that'll never be more than a subjective view. Art is what people make it, many people will disagree with you.

***** Watched that video. You seemed in such a muddle with your opinion and I couldn't help facepalming at the "profound" statement..it's not really all that profound. A quick investigation into fine-art photography should answer the "pregiven reality" point you were trying to make (10.33 to 10.48 is basically describing fine-art photography), which seemed to be the crux of your argument. The previsualisation, planning, creating and "willing" it to happen, medium choice and finally production of a fine art photograph seems to fit your notion of what art is. So, by understanding photography from this point of view (the realm of fine-art), maybe then the artisitc nuances (some of which are such a fine line from being technical exercises that I understand why it's such a commonly debated subject) of other sub genres of photography, such as street photography, may become more apparent to you. The previsualisation, planning, creating and "willing" for an image to happen are in no way as obvious in street photography than fine-art, but the human mind has still instigated the creation of the image rather more than just waiting and pressing a button as you suggest. Possibly that's all you think it is when you take your own images, and I get that, I've been there myself in the past.

I don't find how a camera can be an art tool.

David Meyer Damien Hirst had a similar thing a few years ago when he sold a diamond skull for the asking price of $100 million. Turns out it was bought by a consortium of which Hirst was in. In essence he helped purchase his own piece and it had a lot of publicity with no paper trail. It was discovered much later. Not saying Lik did that but - I agree - the shady part is when it becomes a PR thing. Selling a work is one thing, making it a PR move is the weird thing at that dollar level. The move is to make another wealthy collector think they have to have one too since its the hot new thing. I just find it weird. If its legit - hats of to Peter Lik. He IS a marketing expert despite what anyone thinks of his work. His work is also highly marketable which is why he's successful. There aren't many photographers who own 16 galleries or whatever he's up to now. Interesting stuff indeed.

theartofphotography The images and the list of awards just don't stack up for me in the context of this sale. Not saying I'm an expert when it comes to art sales, not saying that all photography shown in respectable institutions is taking my breath away, but to me it makes no sense for somebody to invest such a sum of money into this particular print. And investments in art are generally not being made on a whim and in something that doesn't really stand out for some reason. But yeah, all the best to him anyway. I'll still take just a copy of a book such as "Workers" or "Genesis" by Salgado over that 6.5 million print. Any time.

+Ljr1985 I agree with you on that. But on the other hand, if you want to tell a story in one image (which some argue is the goal of a painting or a photograph), it's certainly easier to paint, composition-wise, because you can do pretty much whatever you like (provided you're talented enough). When you take a photograph, you have to deal with what reality gives you and sometimes you have just a split second to take the shot before the moment (and the story you're trying to tell) is gone. I think maybe painting is harder than taking a photograph but finding an image to shoot is harder than finding an image to paint. Or to put it in another way: Henry Cartier-Bresson's composition skills are as good as Picasso's painting skills. Does that make sense?

well but deal with instant shoot is not art is only random. I know maybe a good knowloges of perpective and colour but essencialy randomness. I dont think art have to be random. In photography you have the story you only save it. You never creative a less you make a studio.

You're right. 👍🏿