Question: Weddings and Art
Wedding photos can be artfully taken. I get PDN, I've seen their wedding issues. But are wedding photos art? Should wedding photographers be considered artists? Thoughts?
posted by Samantha Wolov at 8:24 AM
6 Comments:
Ask it the other way - can an artist make a living as a wedding photographer? Sure.
Can a wedding photographer be an artist? Sure.
Are all Wedding Photographers artists? No. But you don't need the "wedding" part of the equation. Just because someone is a photographer doesn't mean they are an artist. Just because someone is a painter doesn't mean they are an artist.
(though I suppose a painter would always call themselves an artist. Perhaps the key phrase here is "good artist."
Sometimes you just gotta pay the bills. Unfortunately for photographers that will mean - at some point - that they do a wedding or two.
I definitely think so.
Though I suppose it depends on how you define "art", or "artist".
People burn garbage and call it art. People take pictures of sex and call it art. (no offence to you at all!)
I am curious as to your opinion - why wouldn't it be art?
If the picture taken are artsy, sure. Todd Johnson (singaporean blog but american photographer, methinks)
Not all wedding photos are art, just those which are intended to. Are all the photos art? It's the same point.
/Generalizations suck
Ambition and skill. If one of the two is missing - forget it. If both are present to some degree - it's definitely art. (Notice that "ambition" can be present at one instance and absent at another!)
Cheers
Vvoi
I think the key point here to consider is intent. Weddings don't tell us anything, other than that two people got married. Sure there are plenty of opportunities to make pretty pictures at a wedding that I'm sure the mass populous would consider art, but there is a real lack of conceptual intent that needs to be inherent in fine art.
There is nothing wrong with working as a wedding photographer, just as there is nothing wrong with painting houses. Both achieve great things and add pleanty to society. The thing is though don't try and tell me that you are an artist because you photograph weddings for a living. Same goes for a house painter, and a fabricator, or a page designer at a magazine. They all have a certain intent that is not the same as fine art.
People are so quick to try and lable something as art, when in fact it should just be labled as a picture. Just how does one take a picture that is "artsy?" That idea is just absurd. I hear that term all the time and it just makes me cringe.
But if there ever is a place or a time for something to be called artsy, lets make it wedding photography. Then we can all go to a Thomas Kinkade store and find out if he is an "artist".
Oh, one more thing. Not all photographers have to shoot weddings at all. It's your choice to do or not to do something. If you think the money is important, then shoot on. If not, I'll see you in the mack-and-cheeze isle.
I would say that wedding photosare just as much "art" as erotic photos. Both include subjects which are innately sublime and provocative. The subjects themselves stir emotion without necessitating much inspiration from the photographer. "Bad" wedding photos can be as artful as "bad" erotic photos.
This as opposed to showing the beauty what is otherwise ugly. That's a far more difficult endeavor and requires deft manipulation and creativity from the originator.
Post a Comment
<< Home