It’s a question that has often divided Art experts, can you consider a photograph to be a work of art. It was at one of the very first meetings of the Photographic Society of London that one of the members stated that the works were too literal to be considered works of art. Can a photograph elevate the imagination like a fine picture or sculpture is able to.
Her’s an example of a photograph that is considered a work of art. This piece by the photographer Andreas Gursky actually fetched over two million pounds. Is it just recording a scene, how much imput does the photographer have to the artistic process and composition of the image.
It’s perhaps too easy to look at that image and just think they’ve pressed a button. However obviously the image is composed and designed in the mind of the person who is at the other side of the lens.
Photographs like these are clearly more than a simple representation of a scene. The main issue is probably simply because it can be recreated so easily. If I was at the same place as where Andreas took this photo then I’m pretty sure I could come up with something comparable. But that’s really the rub, sure I could copy his photo – does that make mine worth £2 million – I suspect not.
There is art everywhere and perhaps the camera is just another medium for capturing it. The picture is composed long before the shutter is released,. If you visit the National Gallery exhibitions in London for example you’d see some stunning photos from over 200 years of photography, they have as much artistic merit as much else in the gallery.
If you search online you’ll also see how photographs play an important part in web design on some of the most stunning web sites. There is nothing better to promote traffic growth and creating a buzz about your website than some photographs. Learn how to adapt the images to help your website from this interesting post – http://www.ngbconsult.co.uk/seoguide/2010/05/social-bookmarking-seo/