What makes a photo artistic rather than just a simple snapshot? Is this image of a woman walking her dog artistic? How is it any different from an ordinary snapshot? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but it’s something I’ve been pondering for a while.
It’s likely that most of us think of family vacation photos when we think of a snapshot. This image certainly isn’t that – I don’t know who the woman or the dog are – but it’s not necessarily artistic either. Could context have anything to do with our perception of an image like this? For example, if it was viewed with a slide show of photos of a family on vacation, most would probably think it was some family member, or maybe even a mistake – just an extra, unintended shutter click or a badly composed image of a shop window. But view it in a collection of artistic photos in a gallery exhibit by a famous photographer and most would see it in a completely different way. Same photo – different perception. Is one interpretation more right than the other? Is art, then, simply in the eye of the beholder?
I’m reminded of an interview of Annie Leibovitz that appeared in the March/April 2009 issue of American Photo. In the article she says, “In the beginning, I traveled alone. I carried my equipment, and if I used a light, I would set it up myself. Some people took the results as a style. A writer for American Photographer once said the the umbrella stand and strobe reflected in the mirror in my portrait of Jimmy Carter was a “skillfully implemented device.” As I recall, I walked into the room holding the light and set it down and plugged it in and started taking pictures. I didn’t think about it.” Do art/photography critics determine what is artistic for us?
I for one, just don’t get a lot of Ansel Adam’s work. Sure – I appreciate the technical difficulties he overcame to take and print his photos. I can see his skill in much of his work, but I’m just not a big fan of black-and-white landscapes. And some of his photos I just don’t understand at all. He did a photo of a firehouse in San Francisco, for example that doesn’t speak to me whatsoever. Just a shot of a building. Another of a Robert Lewis Stevenson Memorial that looks to me like an ordinary vacation photo (except Mom and the kids aren’t in it.) What makes that artistic? His name attached to it? As my skills improve, will I go back and look at these photos in a different way with a different understanding?
I’m not convinced that I can begin to take artistic photos until I understand what makes a photo artistic to me, even if those photos aren’t considered artistic by others. I’ve taken hundreds of photos of pretty flowers and some look very nice, but I don’t think any of them are artistic. I look at them and think, there’s got to be a way to take these to the next level. Something that will make them stand apart from a skillfully accurate representation of a flower. To that end, I’ve enrolled in an online course called “Fine Art Flower Photography” that starts in July. Will it enable me to elevate my work? That remains to be seen. If nothing else, I look forward to the experience.
