Is Nature Photography Considered Art?

[Matt_Payne]

Originally published at: https://www.naturephotographers.network/is-nature-photography-considered-art/

A subject of vigorous debate and self-reflection that often gets discussed on my podcast are the questions of whether or not we individually consider ourselves to be artists and how we define what art actually is when it comes to nature and landscape photography. While there is far from consensus on the question, perhaps we can peel back the layers of this onion and provide some perspective. To get to the root of these questions, it first makes sense to examine the definition of art as found in the dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines art as: 

1. Skill acquired by experience, study, or observation;
2. The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects;
3. Decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Creating nature photography requires the conscious choice of framing, composition, lens selection, when to press the shutter, what settings to use, how to edit the image, and many other skills. 

Based on these definitions, it seems definitive that any form of photography can easily be considered art, but is that good enough to end the conversation? I’m not so sure, so let’s delve a bit deeper by first engaging in some self-reflection, shall we?

I often find myself questioning whether I am truly an artist, as I think many nature photographers do throughout their career. There are many possible reasons we do this as nature photographers:

1. Imposter Syndrome – Photographers feel as though at any time they are going to be found out as a fraud. This looks like feeling like one doesn’t belong and that any achievements are the result of luck. Imposter Syndrome can impact anyone no matter their actual skill level, social status, or degree of expertise.
2. Nature photography is rarely accepted by the established fine art gatekeepers (galleries, art shows, etc.) and is generally looked down upon by champions of the traditional art forms such as painting, sculpture, etc.
3. While not always, it seems that the kind of photography that IS accepted by the traditional fine art gatekeepers deviates significantly from what most of us would define as nature photography. These images often utilize compositing techniques (which interestingly in the fine art world is called photo montage) where multiple photos are combined into something new; or photos that rarely even look like photos anymore, such as those that were made using intentional camera movement, double exposures, multi-media mash-ups, and more. 

These factors often leave many of us questioning whether we are artists, and I think to fully appreciate the nuance even further, we need to go back in time. The origins of why photography is often not considered by many to be a form of art can be traced all the way back to the beginning of photography itself. Photography was immediately dismissed because it was seen as merely making a copy of what already exists, and photographs can be replicated themselves ad infinitum. Contrasted with paintings or sculptures, which are original works of art that cannot easily be replicated, photographs can be copied over and over again, which many see as cause for them to have little or no value; however, it is my opinion that this argument against photography as an art form is rooted in the idea that art must have monetary value to be considered art, and I think that is far from the truth. After all, it is the fine art gatekeepers of our world that have it in their best interest to dictate what art has value and what art does not, which is why we see so many photographers implementing limited editions on their work. This strategy to limit the number of times our work can be replicated is, in my opinion, a marketing scheme developed by the fine art gatekeepers to elevate photography’s place in the fine art market, and nothing more. Perhaps the most authoritative essay on this subject was written by Brooks Jensen, and it is something I encourage you all to take a look at while contemplating the artistic and monetary value of your own work.

I believe that making a distinction between monetary value and artistic value is a fantastic segue for us to continue examination of these questions. In a perfect world, the two would be linked closely; however, that is almost never the case. How much a piece of art sells for is only an indicator of how much it is seen to provide value to the person that buys it, and nothing more. The definitions of value vary greatly person-to-person, ranging from prestige, decorative practicality, personal feelings about the artwork, and much more. Where am I going with all of this? My point is that art is a highly subjective construct and the bar to meet its definition is very low; however, it also illustrates that this subjective nature provides us with ways we can measure the artistic value or merit of any given creation, including a single nature photograph. It is also true that what you might think is terrible, I might think is a stroke of genius. Such is the nature of art. 

As such, I strongly argue that nature photography is art; however, not all art should be considered valuable, and not all art can rise to our expectation of being good art. Just as I could record an audio recording of me singing in the shower and call it musical art (you really don’t want me to), I can (and have) also make a photograph that is lacking in technical execution, with poor colors, employing bad editing, using a terrible composition, without any deeper meaning, in an ordinary way – and call it photographic art. 

The better question to ask ourselves then, is how can I create nature photographs that are artistically good?

There probably is not a lot of consensus in the answer to that question; however, I aim to provide a simple framework for evaluating nature photography’s artistic quality using five criteria:

1. Skill: the longer we engage in nature photography, the more we can begin to recognize and appreciate the skill and technique that was employed in the creation of any given photograph. To do so, simply compare the photograph with others that are similar in nature and contemplate what went into creating it. Did the photograph utilize a pleasing color palette or, in the case of a black and white photo, tonal variation, contrast, etc.? Are the photographs created by this artist consistent in quality, intent, care, and curation? 
2. Beauty: this one is perhaps the most subjective and one could even argue that beauty is not an important factor here; however, I believe that even photographs of things or moments that are not beautiful can be beautiful themselves, as the photographer may have been able to instill a part of themselves into the creation of the image. Beauty would include the use of complimentary colors, use of textures, shapes, and lines, skillful and intentional composition, and more.

3. Meaning: this is perhaps where most nature photography falls short, including much of my own work. In my opinion, meaning in our art follows a continuum, with the easiest and least important at the top:
   1. Pure representation of an object or moment – this is typically what we find in the majority of nature photography.
   2. Story-telling and emotional impact – these images can convey an idea or represent a state of mind, and are often difficult for the viewer to grasp without some explanation on the part of the artist; however, these images can also help the viewer create their own version of the story being told or help them express their own emotions, which is also artistically successful.
   3. Statements – these photographs make a powerful statement about a cause, an issue, or a culturally-relevant concern. In nature photography this often takes the form of conservation photography.
   4. Metaphor – these photographs contain multiple meanings and utilize symbolism and representation to convey more. In my opinion, these are often the most difficult images to construct in nature.
   5. Uniqueness: without using gimmicky processing techniques, how different is the photograph from other photographs of a similar nature? I’m as guilty as any for photographing popular compositions, and I never view those images in my portfolio as being good art; however, the images I have from popular locations that are quite different than others I have seen from the same place are some of the images I’m most proud of. How can you instill a part of you in your images and make them stand-out?
   6. Realized Purpose: did the artist successfully say what they set out to say through their work? One way to think about this is to look at your own artist statement and then look at your photographs. Do your photographs say what you say your photographs are about? If not, you may have missed the mark. Need help writing an artist statement? Check out this article.

Using these criteria can help us grow as photographers (and artists) and help our photographs really grow into more artistically valuable medium. I have been thinking about these variables in my own work over the past few years and I certainly know that I have a long way to go before much of my own work checks all the boxes. This is incredibly exciting for me as it gives me something tangible to work towards and will keep me engaged in this legitimate art form for a very long time to come.

[Igor_Doncov]

I love the subject matter you have chosen to write on. I hope it invites a lively discussion. It’s a huge subject and this article feels like an outline of points to be made. Each point could be further expanded and really made into an article in and of itself.

I myself have thought and read a fair amount on the subject. I’m in big agreement with Tolstoy’s What is Art. His conclusion is that the purpose of art is to elicit strong emotions. I find that to be a key ingredient in art. And since psychologists tell us that the human brain has 6 main emotions that can be mapped then beauty should not be the sole criteria for art. Emotions such as fear, surprise (awe) and even disgust are all emotions worthy of art.

When photography came along artists kind of moved the goal posts, didn’t they? A mechanical device replaced all the skill that mankind struggled with for centuries. So they redefined art to be more abstract. It’s interesting that Andrew Wyeth’s work was loved by the public but looked down by artists due to it’s realism. Personally I find that funny. Wyeth’s work is some of the most emotionally impactful I have ever seen. He’s a Great artist, with a capital G. We can literally make nature photographic images as impactful as his paintings. And that would be art in my book.

Of the images you have posted I find the second and last one the most impactful with the second one the clear winner. I don’t know why, but that’s my gut reaction (back to Tolstoy).

[nichole (Nichole Vild)]

@Matt_Payne

…s really grow into more artistically valuable medium. I have been thinking about these variables in my own work over the past few years and I certainly know that I have a long way to go before much of my own work checks all the boxes. This is incredibly exciting for me as it gives me something tangible to work towards and will keep me engaged in this legitimate art form for a very long time to come.

It always strikes me that gatekeepers - no matter what they are gatekeeping - seem to be threatened by something. I’ve never understood why this is a debate. Seems small-minded.

[StephenPrunier]

I feel that any created object or sound, which was made for the purpose of expressing one’s feelings is a form of art. Was Miles Davis (musician), Galen Rowell (photographer), or George Nakashima (furniture maker) not considered artists? So yes, you are creating art!

[Kerry_Gordon]

Perhaps this is a little “outside the box” but here’s my take.
I think it is important to distinguish between the notion of art and the notion of artist. Art is a product – something we make or create. In that regard, it has resolution and is something we can identify as “that”. Being an artist, however, is not ultimately something we do but a way of being. To be an artist means a commitment to an ongoing and ever unfolding dialogue that has no resolution or conclusion. In that sense I can never really say once and for all, “I am an artist” but only “I am becoming an artist”. In the same way that we cannot speak of enlightenment as an accomplishment or an achievement, in other words as conclusive, so we cannot speak of being an artist in any conclusive way either. To speak about being a “great” artist or a “bad” one is, in this sense meaningless since there can be no basis for judgment beyond the artist’s own embodied experience. To the extent that I am thoroughly engaged in my relationship with the world, is the extent to which I may experience myself as an artist. And, as it is a dialogue, I can never be done with it once and for all because being an artist is an experience that continuously reveals itself and continuously deepens and evolves. That is why it is pointless, even debilitating to compare myself as an artist with someone else. Because there is no comparison that has meaning. In this sense we are all artists to the extent that we are willing to be present and participate in all our relations. Because all relationships are a creative arising, to be in relationship is, therefore, a creative act. In that sense we all have the capacity, even responsibility to be artists. To be an artist is to be concerned, not with the product but with the experience of creative arising in all our relationships. Being a photographer in the sense of being an artist is not, therefore primarily about the pictures we make but rather about the participatory, even meditative process of making them.

[Kris_Smith (Kristen M Smith)]

Here it comes again. This old chestnut. Not trying to be offensive, Matt, because I know you are passionate about this and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I’m tired of this whole argument. It’s art if you think it is, it isn’t art if you don’t. Like anything else. Continual pursuit, study, practice and mastery of it is an art and a creative medium even if you don’t do any post processing. But nature photography is a derivative art in many ways. It is one with more of a disconnect with the tools, materials and subjects with which we work.

Consider “found object” art. Stuff made with trash or other similar discarded stuff that no one considers lovely. Some value this kind of thing and other “outsider” art that flies in the face of convention (some photography included), but many just shake their heads and say any kindergartener could do as well. I make that analogy because the foundation of all nature photography is found objects. We may extend our processes to the very limits of what modern cameras and software can do, but the start of it all is something outside of our control or direct manipulation. It begins in reality even if it doesn’t stay there. It is “found art” in many ways and one of the first “outsider” art mediums because of its need for equipment and for something physical for that equipment to be put in front of.

Also, I think, of our lack of being able to control what we put the camera in front of keeps us at a remove. We have to wait for light instead of creating it like Vermeer did. We have to wait for that stag to be at bay instead of just imagining it and putting it on canvas. We can’t pose animals the way a portraitist can and does. We have to take the ocean as it is or risk a dangerous storm instead of conjuring drama like Titian. We have to wait for a split second of a bird’s take off instead of just watching and then creating our prints like Audubon.

I make no excuses or allowances for that knowing what I know about the process and how long it can take to master. Moreso when film was involved, but far easier now. Be honest - it isn’t that hard to take decent (even good) photos these days. All you have to do is look at any photography blog, website or social media sharing platform. I’m not talking about the highest level of achievement here, but more people can do this decently well than can paint, make jewelry, sculpt, play an instrument or compose music at the same level of competence. And it takes far less time to get to that level.

And for even more honesty, I turned to photography in high school when I proved incompetent at drawing, painting, sculpting, pottery or watercolors. I know I’m not the only one. Yes, I’ve been at it for over 35 years and think of myself as accomplished. Not nearly done learning and growing, but I was doing decent work within a few years of picking up a camera. My work is better now. I do consider it art. And I don’t give a tinker’s damn whether anyone else does. The images I produce are created as much as they are found, but they are found. I find it fun, challenging and can always find some new aspect to explore. That’s enough for me. I do this for me, for like minded folks and that is it.

Maybe a bit too blunt, but really, can’t we stop being defensive about this and just accept that some will think it art and others that we just have nice cameras?

[GEGJr (George E Givens, Jr.)]

Matt,

This is an awesome article. Full of thoughtful ideas for self-reflection. Great job.

Regards,
GEGJR
P. S., On subject of beauty, I think that criteria should be removed as box to be checked. In my opinion many paintings, sculptures, and drawings are not esthetically beautiful. Such as Vincent vanGogh’s self-portrait. In fact, I find much of his work not esthetically pleasing. Another good question; is architecture considered art?

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
~Martin Luther King, Jr.

This e-mail message, and any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.

[Tom_Nevesely]

While I agree that making good photographs from a technical point of view isn’t in the end all that hard one must not discount the other half of photo and that is the story or the composition. Saying that photographs only record or document is in my view absolute rubbish. It’s the photographer that chooses what’s in the frame and what isn’t. It’s the photographer that guides the viewer to “see” what the photographer wants the viewer to see by the way they arrange the elements in the frame. The photographer’s goal is to tell a story, to share a feeling or an opinion without the use words and to me that is just as much art as any other medium.

Those who know me, know that I love quotes and here is a few that share my sentiment on the topic:

"Photography is the art of observation. It has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.” - Elliott Erwitt

"Never let it be said that the camera does not lie. It lies like a pig in mud. It captures the projections of whoever happens to be using it, never the truth.” - Robyn Davidson

“It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” - Henry David Thoreau

[daphne (Daphne Carlyle)]

Hello, What a great article. It also led to another super article on preparing your artist statement.

Lots of reading! I do not read at length on any screen; I prefer to read printed materials. Is there a way to copy/print any of these articles for perusing at leisure when there is time for such printed words to be well digested?

Call me frustrated…

Daphne

[Mike_Friel]

Mention of money for me muddies the waters of a discussion like this. If someone earns 69 million dollars for an NFT based on photos, good luck to him. And good luck to those of you who can sell your photos. You are the (semi-)professionals. And folks are buying your work not simply out of the goodness of their hearts (usually!). I’m almost in agreement with @Kris_Smith when she says: “It’s art if you think it is, it isn’t art if you don’t”. But I’d modify this as follows: “It’s art if you and people whose work you admire think it is”. Which is one of the reasons why I joined NPN in the first place.As an amateur “artist”, I can learn, enjoy and share the feelings of the others. Like going to an Art Gallery and listening to the artists expound on their works. (By the by, Matt, is that third photo from the bottom meant to be a composite statement on environmental change? My favourite is the green forest).

[Matt_Payne]

@daphne

…Hello, What a great article. It also led to another super article on preparing your artist statement.Lots of reading! I do not read at length on any screen; I prefer to read printed materials. Is there a way to copy/print any of these articles for perusing at leisure when there is time for such printed words to be well digested?Call me frustrated…Daphne

Hello, you can open it at this link, and then just right click and print.

[Matt_Payne]

@Mike_Friel

By the by, Matt, is that third photo from the bottom meant to be a composite statement on environmental change?

On the original link to the article, it shows the caption, not sure why it doesn’t show up here =)

" This photo is a statement on the American West and the use of water to transform the landscape for cattle grazing."

[Matt_Payne]

@Kris_Smith

Not trying to be offensive, Matt, because I know you are passionate about this and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I’m tired of this whole argument.

No worries - but - which argument exactly are you tired of? I think perhaps the point of the entire essay may have been missed, although I can see how given the title of it, lol

Your example of Found Art is a good one - and one I tried to point out - that even art of things that are not objectively beautiful can serve a purpose.

@Kris_Smith

We have to wait for light instead of creating it

I mean, sure, that’s sort of true except nowadays there are plenty of folks creating their own light using photoshop

BTW, I hope I didn’t offend you here but my analysis was using my own work as a mirror and sometimes I still question whether or not it should be seen as art. I think it is because for whatever reason I have held artistry in such high regard… but more to my point that’s why I shifted to explaining that there’s art, and then there’s good art - and everything in between.

@Kris_Smith

Maybe a bit too blunt, but really, can’t we stop being defensive about this

Not sure what part of my article was defensive, but certainly was not my intent!

Thanks for your thoughtful reply! =)

[daphne (Daphne Carlyle)]

Thanks Matt,

I was referring to the article on “Preparing Your Artist Statement”. There was a link provided for that article but I saw no way to print or save it.

This seems to be standard when people post informative information and I am just wondering if it is even possible to print any of them.

Thanks again,

Daphne

[Matt_Payne]

@Igor_Doncov

I love the subject matter you have chosen to write on. I hope it invites a lively discussion.

Thank you sir! I am glad you enjoyed this. I have always found it interesting that people’s definitions and standards for art are so different.

@Igor_Doncov

His conclusion is that the purpose of art is to elicit strong emotions.

Totally think that makes sense, and, not trying to be a jerk, and maybe I’m just an old curmudgeon, but I think most nature photography doesn’t. Or at least it doesn’t do it very easily. Then again, some folks can see a shiny coin on the ground and be filled with strong emotion - so again, it is wildly subjective!

@Igor_Doncov

When photography came along artists kind of moved the goal posts, didn’t they?

I love this and it it does make you question my entire essay here, and perhaps my standards are just too high.

[Matt_Payne]

@daphne

…Thanks Matt,I was referring to the article on “Preparing Your Artist Statement”. There was a link provided for that article but I saw no way to print or save it.This seems to be standard when people post informative information and I am just wondering if it is even possible to print any of them.Thanks again,Daphne

Gotcha. Yeah, I just went to it, right clicked inside of it, chose print, and it gave me the option to do so.

[Matt_Payne]

@Kerry_Gordon

That is why it is pointless, even debilitating to compare myself as an artist with someone else. Because there is no comparison that has meaning. In this sense we are all artists to the extent that we are willing to be present and participate in all our relations.

I love this, Kerry - well said! =)

[daphne (Daphne Carlyle)]

Bingo! Thanks Matt. That is probably something I should have known… My old brain still has trouble understanding and remembering all the “tricks of the trade”. That is why I am so grateful for all the resources, especially for image processing. Things have truly changed since I studied photography and was only allowed to use a view camera for the first year!! It is a fact that my personal hard drive (BRAIN) is desperately in need of defragging! Too much going on!

Thanks again – I love the NPN with all its young blood!

Daphne

[Matt_Payne]

No problem at all! I’m glad it worked!

[markbgardner]

Thoughtful article Matt! This is a topic that I’ve thought about quite a bit over the years, but don’t get too worked up about anymore. Here are some thoughts/observations:

My wife has been a working artist for over 30 years with galleries and art fairs/shows providing a platform for income. Over the years, I’ve sat in her booth at shows and listened to her conversations with people that stop in. Two aspects of those conversations are relevant. First, they are very different than the conversations that I hear between “fine-art” photographers (including me) and the public. Those conversations are usually about cameras, the location where the photograph was made, wondering about “photoshopping” (like that’s a sin), etc. They are rarely about the inspiration and process for making the artwork ( the print). In my wife’s conversations, it’s all about her inspiration and process. No one asks her what kind of printing press or ink she uses to make her block prints. To me, that says that the public largely views photography as a recording medium, and that the recorder (camera) is the creator, not the photographer.

The second aspect of these conversations is about a “story that resonates”. By that I mean, the value that is created for viewers and buyers of art has less to do with the medium or price, and more to do with the story that tugs at their heart strings or memory banks. Most people that purchase my wife’s artwork create a story around the work based on their experience or aspiration, and the resulting emotions created by those. And most will tell that story before they leave, and they generally don’t even look at the price. To me this means that the value is in the heart of the beholder. The question of “is it art” is really answered by the heart, first by the artist and then with those with whom the work resonates. For those people, the answer is yes, but for everyone else, the answer is at best “maybe”, and probably “no”. Maybe we need to change the conversation we have with the public from cameras to stories.

A couple of more - I have a long-term project to photograph artists in their creative spaces. I make a point of talking to the artist about their work, process and motivations, which makes for some fascinating discussions. Most report the same kind of conversations that I described above for my wife. I’ve also been surprised over the years by how many artists (painters and sculptors) work from photographs, usually not their own. You can even now buy an easel with a place to hold your iPad. This means that their composition is someone else’s (does that sound familiar), and that art is then created by the rendering of that composition using their chosen medium and techniques. That would seem to say that the art is in the technique, meaning I’m an artist if I can paint in pleasing way. Maybe this is part of our problem because photography is viewed as low in technique, and creative composition is less important than technique in the public’s view. BTW, one of the most creative artists that I’ve photographed is a home brewer (although he has an amazing brewery in his garage). Who would think that beer is an artistic medium.

And finally (sorry to go on), I recently read Stieglitz’s biography. He was an early advocate for photography as art. In his day, photography was not considered art because it wasn’t done “by hand”, but by mechanical means. Stieglitz’s argument was that art is made not just by the hand but also by the head and the heart. And I think that’s absolutely right! This was early in the evolution of photography, especially as art. By the time of f64, one could argue that there was a lot of skilled “handwork” required in the making photographic artwork, both in capture (e.g., camera placement and settings), and in the darkroom (e.g. dodging and burning). But the public doesn’t seem to be aware of that. People are almost always shocked when I show them the comparison between a straight print of “Moonrise over Hernandez” and Adams’s final print that we most are familiar with. I also like to show people Weston’s “Pepper #30”. Almost no one says that it’s just a recording of a pepper, and almost everyone agrees that it is art.

Stieglitz had it right - photography can produce art via the hand, head and heart. I think our challenge is in the conversations that I described above. Almost everyone I know is a “photographer”, but few make art (at least on purpose). I know a lot fewer painters and sculptors but almost all are making art. So perhaps the public thinks they know about photography because so many “take” photographs. I never ceased to be amazed at how little they actually understand about photography, much less how art is or can be created with photography. Few practice painting or sculpting, and don’t really know how the artwork is created, but they accept it as art. To them photography is a recording medium, just like a video camera. But I think most people would acknowledge movie-making as an art form.

OK, that’s enought. Sorry to blather on!