Photography in the arts can be used to capture an event, moment, something that is visually famous (ex: statue of liberty) and carry it to show someone who wasn’t there or isn’t able to see it. It is also used to show a different aspect of the art the photographer is capturing. I would consider photography n art because of the latter.
When a photographer is capturing something that can be perceived or interpreted differently that is when it becomes art. Also there are many ways to do photography, such as developing and capturing something digital but it takes a skill, or talent to capture something with a new perspective and use this technique. Based on the definition I provided in my last post about art this would make photography art.
When we went to the Museum of Modern Art we went to an exhibit where one of the themes were photographs of sculptures or something visual that was in it of itself art. What makes these photographs art is the way we as observers perceive a piece. There is a a picture of a guy that is a dummy and his arm is broken and he is holding a piece of the arm. This photograph was manipulated to express a certain idea, and using a skill, or talent to creatively express this idea is forming art. A piece called “Whirlwind Spiral, The Sahara 1988” is a photograph of a whirlwind spiral that took place n 1988 and is shown to us who would not have seen it otherwise. The effort put into making the photograph look the way it is, such as making it gray, and taking it from a specific angle is a technique. However techniques are used in all forms of art, such as the mathematics behind a vanishing point and depth used to create a painting, yet no one would exclude a painting as art.
Very confusing post.