Photography without a doubt, can be considered art. Art, in my simplest definition is something that impresses me. I think there is a strong misconception among the general populous that photography requires no talent, after all, the only thing stopping someone from taking a picture is a simple push of the finger. Photography can be more versatile then people think. I’m not referring to the options you can do on photoshop; I’m talking about how and when you take the picture. Lighting and focus play major roles in differentiating a regular photograph and one that can be called art. Anyone can take a regular photo, but it takes an artist to capture the shadows, or the angles perfectly. Photography can take any object and change it into art. I’m not sure if I saw any pictures on the MoMa site that I thought did a good job of capturing photography as an art, but there are superfluous shots online capturing the subject perfectly with proper lighting. The way that people capture this image is art. Photography creates different perspectives and allows a gray area of question such as, “why was this taken?” Photography instigates a different set of questions than regular paintings in that in a painting, the artists reason could be as simple as the creation of a replica, but when you use photography, a deeper question is asked because simply replicating the scene is so simple.
The thing with a painting is that there is room for the artist to alter parts of his work which further pushes my argument that photography is indeed a form of art. Like it was mentioned, technology these days can edit photographs to add or remove objects and so on. This allows for the photographer to alter his picture to make it picture perfect, in order to tell the story best. Photography is just another median in which artists can display their work.
Nice responce