Debate this! It is my pompous opinion that photographers are not artists and what they produce is not art. The same goes for Installation Art, it`s crap...shit. But that`s juz my pinion, painter for 2 years By : james

Now, we both know that this is a deliberatly contentious way to start a debate and with only two years art practise under your belt i think you should define your idea of art. The market has been upvaluing the good photography consistently for the last few years and collectors and fans have been happy to pay these , and. sorry to all you market cynics out there, it is my opinion that the market is a good judge of quality and validity in art. If art is a way of expanding understanding about the human condition and offering new interpretations of life then I refer you to the work of victor burgin, gregory crewdson, phillip lorca dicorcia, thomas demand, hiroshi sugimoto for a start and if it`s installation art, not my personal favourite at the minute, then ed kienholz and george segal, can`t think of any of the newer bunch that take my breath away although I`m open to suggestion, and your definition and favourites would be? By : Jal

Photography is photography no matter how you slice it. Just using a piece of equipment to capture something that already exists. Does that mean my copy machine is an artist? Hardly. The fact that someone buys a photo does not make it art. No matter how pretty it may be. I think we all know what art is. Need not define. By : ramg

Oh look everyone...we are debating art. Isn`t it wonderful? There`s hope after all. By : Jal

the person behind the brush, chisel or camera makes art, and you do need to define your idea of art, most folk have different views on the matter and that`s what makes it a lot more interesting. By : james

i am not a photographer, but i am very fond of the work of a number of `artists` who use this medium. reducing photography to a simple click is completely naive. please go to a bookstore and have a look at the work of ansell adams, and robert doisneau. if you have a museum close by which has their work i recommend you go have a look. once you`ve done so please come back to this forum without your opinion of what is or isn`t art, and we might be able to have a discussion about the nature of grey, and the process of development. i`m sorry to say that i find your uninformed opinion void of any merit, and i refuse to humour ignorance like this on a site where many are those who work seriously with the medium in question. By : ramg

Ah, this old lame debate. To even suggest photography is not art reveals such complete ignorance that the very question depresses me. (As does your generalization about installation art) The Times (UK) today ran an article explaining in great detail why photography was going to dominate the art market in 2008. Painting is exciting, too--as is cinema and music and all the other ways we express ourselves so, for a supposedly educated person to proclaim their chosen medium is `art` but mine is `all crap....shit` betrays not only your supreme arrogance but also a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of what so many great photographers have achieved and contributed to the art world. How can anyone who claims to be interested in art not understand that? By : hinduja

Excuse me but a camera is not a medium. The appreciation of photographs still does not make it art. I think you folks have "The Arts" confused with art. The Arts encompasses many things opera, film, dance on and on. I see no ballet dancers here on Saatchi. Prince is not singing Purple rain. No opera,no theater and what no film! You see a photograph, however spectacular it is, is only a mechanical copy of what already exists. To be considered art in my book one needs to have a pen, pencil, tube of paint, brush, slab of clay, granite, canvas, paper, metal together with a human hand and imagination to form anew. You know I`m right, quit pretending you have the answers to the universe men. By : ashwin_u

And no I would not consider a dead shark in a tank "art". or even something what indians are doing, Just an incredible waste of money. By : james

i see a camera in a store. i buy the camera. the camera is a tool to record what the eye sees. the camera does not take the pictures without a `hand` pressing the button. even if i program a robot to take the pictures i have still programmed the robot. human intervention is not only necessary, but without it there is no begining and therefore no photograph. once i have taken the photograph i can develop it in any number of ways. all of these interventions need the human hand and eye to manipulate and make decisions. a camera is to the photographer what brushes and tubes etc are to the painter, or chisels are to the sculpture. you may consider one art form to be more valid, or more noble than another but this is only a question of personal bias. i as a painter find your claims totally absurd, and a tremendous demonstration of ignorance,........ but i`m only pulling on your pigtails........anybody got an ink well. snappy By : Jal

a camera is to the photographer what brushes and tubes etc are to the painter. I agree snappy, I am a painter, but I use my camera to take shots, I then either play with photo shop or I use them as reference to paint a painting. A camera is an art tool as is a brush, you need a human/artist to operate it and click. I`m glad someone is using this site as what it was designed for. By : james

I am a photo editor for a large publishing house, and a painter in watercolors as well as oils, and make my living from both. I have a perspective of both disciplines, as I have been working with and studying both for many years now. I`d like to say to all of this, from my perspective, art is feeling, tempered by structure, created by the artist`s predilection for color, light, balance, and form. The medium is secondary, the poetry created by the artist-- mandatory. Whatever path it takes I leave for the artist to deal with. I don`t care if it`s an object made of sand and glue, or a grainy image of a half lit building, or a watercolor with a single color used. In a phrase, for what it`s worth, don`t blame the medium for the poor art: it`s only the tool. By : ramg

The term art is used to describe a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual It`s funny. All you have to do is say something nobody understands and they`ll do practically anything you want them to. By : Jal

For half a century photography has been the "art form" of the untalented. Obviously some pictures are more satisfactory than others, but where is credit due? to the designer of the camera? To the finger on the button? tso the law of averages? Author: Gore Vidal Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered. Author: Francois Cavanna I dont agree with either ,and you shouldnt either !!! ??? By : hinduja

(1) "Photography....is not ART..." (2) "I think we all know what is art. Need not define." @(1) To my opinion here is some confusion concerning the terms "art work" and "Art": An "art work" is a WORK done by a person - (therefore the ready mades of Duchamps are not art works)- done without any intention to solve a practical/technical problem (otherwise this work would be a TOOL).Therefore a photography CAN be an art work if it is processed by the photographer, not for a practical usage (=tool) but for delightment. To be or not to be ART is a FEELING of an observer confronted with an art work. This is a case of judgement; its value depends on the personal conditions existing in this individuum. Therefore the opinions differ between the observers, from "bad" to "good" art. Are there "objective" criteria possible to qualify ART ? @(2) The definition of ART is the problem to be discussed! See Picasso: "If I would know what art is, I would not tell it to anybody, but only do it". Hajo (10jan08) By : ashwin_u

A monkey can operate a camera and so can I. Who says I can`t take a photo? Anyone can. This is an art site, not a photography site. It is insulting to me as an artist for that title be given to a photographer. By : Jal

The oil painting was used as our most common way of seeing imagery from the 16th century up until about 1900, when photography took over as the main source of imagery. We still have oil paintings today but far less than ever before. The photograph is now the traditional method of seeing. By : ramg

("After you die you may become an artist", - Hajo 05.12.2007) By : james

I guess that this heading is to wind people up. Painting with light can be very creative, especially when you look at the photographers from the 1930s, sculpting with light and shade. I do feel that this is lost today in digital photography at the moment. I still use traditional formats and think that a lot of photography in fashion art portraiture is very boring and flat. I was looking at a book on Cecil Beaton last night and thought what a great photographer he was, using black and white photography; he had a great quality to his tones textures and the overall quality to his work which in a lot of cases is missing in today photography. I’m usually very disappointed when someone who takes a spontaneous picture of another person walking up to there doorway with a tattoo on his mid drift in I think it was Brighton wins the top photo BP awards, the pictures was non creative and boring, anyone could have taken it. Very Frustrating. By : hinduja

living things put colour and shape onto different places as long as it is expression then it is art wherever the colour and shape is put even if it is on :- thin air a plate paper shiny card a toilet seat a wall skin stone a feather an ear lobe the floor the wall above the fire place the ground the mind a home a fridge on TV toenails in my pocket in the mud up a tree on a doll on hair a boat a car a cloud an ear drum a mountain a duvet cover a ribbon round the neck or head clothes and shoes and hats the sand the lips or even:- a computer screen or a a gallery wall or even even :- here -------------------------- how the arts gets to these places is irrelevant By : Jal

Art has no boundation of medium. Photography and installation art has many centuries in between. Art has grown from one medium to another. So if artist discovers that he or she wants to use these mediums in their work they should, if it enhances their prospects to reach to the masses... By : rahul_prem1

people want the easy way out. Photos are the way By : ashwin_u