Is Photography Art?

The debate about whether photography can be considered as art or as a purely mechanical process has been raging ever since the first permanent, printed photograph was produced by French inventor Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in 1825.

In 1932, a group was founded that believed very firmly that photography should not be defined by any traditional conventions of art and aesthetics. The group, f/64 was founded by US photographers Willard van Dyk and Ansel Adams.

According to their manefesto, quoted on Wikipedia:

“Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.”

We posed the question to a group of local photographers and these are a selection of their responses:

“Anyone can point a camera a take a photograph, but when someone with a creative eye takes the same shot, you can see the difference - it becomes art.”

“A creative photographer often “sees” the pic where most people would simply walk/drive past.”

“Photography in itself is an art form but it depends very much on who is pressing the shutter.”

“Most definitely. Art is a form of expression - and photography can be used as a tool for expression.”

“Not all photography is art, but I know of at least one photographer whose
images I would happily hang on my wall as "art". He uses shape, light and
shadow to create mood; he uses colour; he uses abstraction; he takes the
brain's natural assumptions and turns them on their head. How can someone do
all that and not be called an artist? He can't produce good drawings or
paintings, but he paints with light.”

“I have seen some "art" recently (oil paintings) that I wouldn't give the
time of day. Art is in the heart, not in the tool.”

What's your opinion? Does the f/64 definition of photography have any credibility?

And should the lab where the photograph was developed be credited along with the photographer?