One of the first things we did in my photography class back in high school was explore the difference between snapshot photography and “artistic” photography. We learned that snapshot photography involved little to no preparation in things like framing, lighting and angle, while “artistic” photography entailed an actual creative process where the photographer considered his or her subject and its relationship with its surroundings, and thought about how to present these things in a unique way. Whereas snapshot photography is used to record and document events, people, places, and objects, “artistic” photography is used to evoke certain emotions, or create a new image from a pre-existing one—offer a new perspective on any given subject. Thus, photography can be artistic, but it doesn’t have to be.
A closeup of a statue, such as in Right Hand of the Sitting Image of Buddha Shakyamuni in the Hall of Miroku, Muro-Ji, Nara, could be considered art because the photographer isn’t just showing the whole piece as one would view it in person, but giving a specific part of it special attention, in this case being the right hand of the statue. By putting a new spin on the art piece, the photographer is creating art of his own. On the other hand, a photograph like Bust of Patroclus is more like a snapshot, a straightforward depiction meant to capture and transport this sculpture through time and space so that others may see it even if even if it’s not in person.
Sometimes photography is meant to be informative, while others it is meant to give some insight on the photographer’s view of a particular image or piece. It can be used as a form of creation and art, but it can also be used to simply capture a moment in time.
Its a nice post. You chose to discuss the two most comment kinds of photographs. However, I wanted you to also think of the semantic use of the words. Could a technic be considered an art form? “I paint” or “I am a painter” does not imply that I am an artist, nor that my picture is a work of art.