”It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.”
~Henry David Thoreau ~
The definition of art is as broad as the political divide in the United States today, and sadly there is no definitive answer accepted by all - rather a myriad of possibilities.
According to Wikipedia …
Art is a diverse range of (products of) human activities involving creative imagination to express technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.
There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, and ideas have changed over time. The three classical branches of visual art are painting, sculpture and architecture. Theater, dance and other performing arts, as well as literature, music, film and other media such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of the arts. Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. In modern usage after the 17th century, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, the fine arts are separated and distinguished from acquired skills in general, such as the decorative or applied arts.
As you can see, photography is not specifically mentioned above. Perhaps it could be included with interactive media(?).
US Open 2017 - Kevin Anderson
If we Google ‘Well Known Artists’ we get a plethora of names… Picasso, Van Gogh, Monet, Rembrandt, Matisse and so forth. Once again, you don’t see Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Yousuf Karsh, Robert Capa, Margaret Bourke-White and other photographic legends.
I think the abyss can be explained in simple terms.
US Open 2015 - Women’s Champion - Flavia Pennetta
Photographers use science & technology to create their end product and this isn’t considered in the classical definition of art. Artistic vision is often the main ingredient for photographers, but suffice to say, technology plays a vital role in creating a masterpiece.
Conventional painters on the other hand, don’t utilize technology to create the finished product; they simply combine artistic vision with raw materials… paint brushes, canvas, oil, water color, etc… It’s an old school process that hasn’t really evolved over the last century.
As such, I don’t believe photography falls into the classic definition(s) of art.
If I had to come up with a modern day definition, it would be more like the following:
“A form of communication whereby an individual conveys feelings,
mood and energy through a creative vision to invoke
emotion, interest or curiosity.”
If I could expand upon this further, it would ideally include some element of exclusivity or uniqueness. I won’t go as far as saying ‘one of a kind’, but something in this vein comes to mind. The more rare the image, the higher the realized or perceived aesthetic value.
I tend to think this is because painters create… dare I say… exclusive pieces of art. For example, there is only one Femme au Chapeau (aka Women with a Hat) by Henri Matisse. Other painters may attempt to replicate or copy his style, but everything from brush strokes, colors, materials and the presentation of Matisse is unique to him. His soul is in the painting. I’m not sure this can every be duplicated(?).
