Can a snapshot that has not been altered be "fine art"?

In the past, before Photoshop, there have been many photos made by pro photographers from architecture to street that are essentially snapshots.  Many of them made by very famous photographers(Robert Frank, Harry Callahan, Lee Friedlander, etc.) are in major museums in the US as fine art photography.

This makes me think that there is a difference between US and European "fine art" photography.  Most photos on 1x look like they are highly Photoshoped.  This does not leave much room for work similar to the common photographer of the past.

Has the meaning of "fine art" photography changed or has it become more narrow?

I took the photo below in Barcelona, Spain with film and think it is "fine art" photography, do

you?

Al - Looking at Wikipedia for what a snapshot is:  "A snapshot is a photograph that is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent and usually made with a relatively cheap and compact camera."  It goes on to say: "Snapshots can be technically "imperfect" or amateurish: poorly framed or composed, out of focus, and/or inappropriately lighted by flash".

If we assume that the definitions are close, then your image, like the work of Frank, Callaghan, Friedlander and many others were hardly snapshots.  These photographers were experts who were strongly driven by good composition and camera craft.  They did NOT take snapshots, although I would suggest that the aesthetic of the snapshot is evident in their work..

Something that Wikipedia does not deal with, but is just as important is in print processing.  Those of us who did a lot of photography in the film days were quite familiar with photofinishing services; drop the exposed film off at your local drugstore or mini-lab and your images would be ready anywhere from an hour or so to a few days later.  These would be processed in a lab where either a human operator or computer guided equipment would adjust exposure and perhaps contrast, straighten up crooked horizon lines and make the print; kind of like using Lightroom sliiders.  If you wanted more than this, you went to a custom lab who did all this PLUS spent some time dodging and burning, i.e. custom photo finishing.  These local adjustments are usually done in a tool like Photoshop.

I learned my skills in the "wet darkroom" and I spent alot of time dodging and burning to create a custom print.  My workflow in the "digital darkroom" is similar to what I did in the "wet darkroom" doing small area adjustments in brightness. 

The best photographers used custom print making processes; either printing themselves (Ansel Adams), directing someone else (Yousef Karsh) or trusting someone else to get it right (Henri Cartier-Bresson).

My favourite image is Ansel Adam's well known piece; Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.  He made over 1300 prints of this work.  Here is the straight-out-of camera contact print and one of the final versions.  Adam's would have loved Photoshop...  The image on the left is the final print and the one on the right, the SOOC print.

Hi,

concerning Fine Art prints there is an exhibition well worth seeing at the Robert Klein Gallery, called "The Fine Print". It deals with the efforts the photographers took to create a real piece of art. Exhibited are 17 different photographs of various styles. You can have a look at them online via https://www.robertkleingallery.com/the-fine-print

Cheers, Hans-Martin

Hans,  

Thank you for the link to 'The Fine Print'.  There are some wonderful images there - some familiar as old friends, and some I've never seen before. 

Steven

Hi Manfred,

I do not disagree with your explanation of using and developing film.  I did not develop or print my own film.  I worked with a pro lab and still do sometimes today.

The definition of "snapshot" is still mostly valid today, but needs to be updated.  The meaning of "cheap camaras" and "compostion" have changed with the advent of the cellphone cameraa.  The rules of composition are being broken today like at no other time( or maybe not, if I look back at what Edward Weston had to say about photography).  Today their are snapshot photographs being made with cellphones, polaroid cameras and old CCD sensor cameras that are haning in museums. 

I think the definition of "fine art" has broadened a lot.  If I look back at the beginning years of 1x, I do not seem to see as many journalistic photos published.  I also see more wild animal photos published by people I assume were on safari and had to take a photo quickly(a telephoto snapshot).

I am not saying that this necessarity bad, but that it is just an adjustment to the times.  When people primarity look at photos on their cellphones and "ipads", photography sites and companies need to make changes to their output.

You seem to be the main person answering my messages.  I hope you get the chance to take/make some photos.

Al

Al, 

The question you posed at the start of this thread . . . . 'Can a snapshot that is not altered be "fine art"?'  I think the answer must be - or should be - 'yes'.  That judgement shouldn't be dependent on how much editing was done to the image, or how much effort the photographer put into making it.  In Olympic diving and gymnastic competitions there is a 'degree of difficulty' factor that affects scores, but not in photography, painting, poetry, etc.  When we see a photograph that demonstrates the photographer's skill at lighting/composing/editing we can admire and respect that, but deciding whether it's fine art or not is a separate thing.  In my opinion.  

The photo you posted at the top of this thread it a good one - it's bright, colourful, and has a fresh, 'surprise' quality.  I can't be sure what it is, but it looks like a sign or a sculpture.   It is artistic - but a photograph of it is just a straightforward copy of the existing art, not art in its own right.  If it were altered in some significant way that made it meaningful to viewers, then perhaps it would be art.

Many of the photographs that have been put up on the pedestal of 'fine art' over the years could have been snapshots.  One that comes immediately to mind - perhaps because it's a photograph of a sign - is Elliott Erwitt's 'Valdes Peninsula, Argentina' (sometimes called 'Pepsi and Jesus').  It's readily available on the internet, so I think it's OK in this context to post a copy here.  It's pretty much a snapshot - probably taken quickly - but juxtaposing those two elements makes it meaningful and thought provoking, and therefore 'art'.  In my opinion anyway. 

Another photograph that might be called a snapshot is Weegee's 'The Critic'.  It was obviously snapped quickly on the street - but what a message it expresses - what a lesson in human nature! 

Thanks for starting the discussion. 

- Steven 

And just to muddy the waters a little...

The Critic is the second name Weegee gave this photograph. He originally called it, The Fashionable People. In an interview, Weegee's assistant, Louie Liotta later revealed that the picture was entirely set up. Weegee had asked Liotta to bring a regular from a bar in the Bowery section of Manhattan to the season's opening of the Metropolitan Opera. Liotta complied. After getting the woman drunk, they positioned her near the red carpet, where Weegee readied his camera to capture the moment seen here.

Peter, 

Thank you.  Yes, I've read that account of how the photo was staged.  I guess that takes a bit of realism away from the photo, but I think it's still a lesson in human nature.  We read fiction and watch movies all the time that are created from a writer's imagination, that aren't real - but they still teach us things.  If a manipulated photo can accomplish something worthwhile by making me think or feel, then that's OK with me.  Perhaps I'm reading too much meaning into Weegee's photo, but as Joubert said, 'You will find poetry nowhere unless you bring some of it with you'. 

. . . . Steven

PS:  you wrote that Weegee originally called the photo . . . . and then there's a blank space.  I'd love to know what the missing word is.  :-)

The Fashionable People, Steven.

Thank you, Gerda.  That's a good title too, but I've always known and loved the photo as 'The Critic', so I'm going to stick with that.  :-)

Al - I agree that the "cheap" cameras from the past have been replaced by the phone camera and while the technology is impressive, it is sill an "inexpensive" camera that is part of the package that we get when we buy a phone, so in most people's hands they are the current iteration of the "cheap camera".  I will also continue to say that some of the worst pictures (as well as some of the very best) have been made by Phase One, Hasselbland and Leica gear.  That is discounting the garbage image we see every day from the Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc. gear.

I want to be a little bit careful in differentiating "composition" from the so called "Rules of Composition".  My favourite quote about composition comes from the Edward Weston when he said "Consulting the Rules of Composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the law of gravity before going for a walk".  The Rules are quite peripheral to a well composed image.  I remember taking a semester long photographic composition course at a local college a number of years back.  The one thing that was NEVER mentioned were the Rules of Composition...

Yes. while everyone complains about the proliferation of poor quality images on the internet, they are not looking at sites like this one or at the work being shown at many of the galleries around.  Among the "serious" photographers, the quality has gone up a lot over the past 10 - 20 years as the digital technology matured.  I am invited to sit on photographic juries around 5 or 6 times a year (I just finished judging a competition earlier this week and am judging a second one now); when I look at the first place images from a decade ago, many would only get middiing scores in the current environment.

Don't worry about my photography; I generally shoot several hundred images a week, but rarely end up working on more that 1% or 2% of the very best (and yes, they are being published here at 1x.com). 

I once read a definition of fine art I'd like to share. Fine art shows the vision of the photographer who treated the base material as good as possible to share this vision. In that sense I would say it really does not matter whether the shot was staged, found or taken by chance. a snapshot can turn out to be more fascinating than a well-thought, composed, planned, staged photograph. It may be less likely, but it can. 

For me it's always a good sign if I envy a photograph, it's the most honest and potentially highest level of appreciation. I would never think about whether I'd count it as fine art. It is for me as soon as I envy it.

Just to muddy the waters yet again, this time with regard to any sniffynes directed at 'snapshot' cameras. Walker Evans and his Polaroid SX-70.

“I had that thing as a toy, and I took it as a kind of challenge. It was this gadget and I decided that I might be able to do something serious with it. So I got to work to prove that. I think I’ve done something with it. After all, I’m getting older, and I feel that nobody should touch a Polaroid until he’s over sixty. You should first do all that work. It makes things awfully easy to have that thing pop out. It reduces everything to your brains and taste. It interests me very much, too, because I feel that if you have theses things in your head, this is the instrument that will really test it. The damn thing will do anything you point it at. You have to really know something before you point it anywhere. You have to know what you point it at, and why – even if it’s only instinctive.”

Hi Peter, Steve, Manfred and Mike,

Yes, my photo at the top of this thread is of a piece sculpture.  I think I submitted it for curation when I first joyend 1x(I might be wrong).  It was not published.

Sometimes I submit photos that I consider to be documentary, because 1x has a documentary categary.  "Documentary" is derived from "document' or "to document".  To document something is to take action and record a record of it.  If you record something, it means that you do not change it afterwards.

In my opinion, taking a photograph of a sculture is no different than taking a picture of a building or part of a building.  Some architects design buildings as works of art.  I have seen many photos of parts of buildings on 1x that would classify as documentary.  Sometimes contrast, saturation and focus are changed.

The point is that there is no logical bases for rejection a sculpture after PP and not rejection architecture.

I agree that the shot by Elliott Erwitt is unique due to the juxstaposition of the two elements.  The photo by Weegee has more of a snapshot even if it was staged considering the position of the person on the right and the background.  To me, the most striking thing in both photos is the amount of what looks like "noise" in Erwitt's photo and slight softness in Weegees photo by todays standards.  Yet, they are considered  "fine art".

Peter's example has the most convincing argument that snapshots can be art.  In that example, both subject matter and medium contribute to it being "fine art" without altering.

I started this threat, becasue as time moves on, some definitions do not remain static.  Art galleries, whether physical or online, have their own unspoken  definitions of what "fine art" is.

"Chi, Chi, Chi, Changes" -- from "Changes" by David Bowie

Michael - I like this definition very much, but I think fine art photography is much more than that and sometimes much less than that.   The lines between fine art, documentary and snapshots is rather indistinct and can change over time.  The reputation of the photographer likely has a lot to do with that.

Let's pick on Yousef Karsh for now.  He was primarily a portrait photographer, much like any other studio around the city took pictures of people.  When I look at studio portraits that were taken of me, they are hardly fine art; so how did a portrait photographer become a fine art photographer whose works are seen in important galleries collections all over the world?  Let's admit that they were very fine portraits, but it took his picture of Winston Churchill in 1941 that cause celebrities from all over the world to flock to his studio.  Is it fine art because the pictures were of famous people?

Is a snapshot taken by a famous celebrity fine art, while a similar picture taken by some tourist of the Eiffel Tower not?

Manfred, to me personally it does not play a role how a photograph is considered, whether as fine art, snapshot, documentary or anything else .... The most important thing is how the viewer is attracted by the photographs (and the photographer). Yes, the reputation of the photogapher also plays an important role.

John Szarkowski, from 1962 to 1991 the director of photography at New York's Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) organized an exhibition with color photos by William Eggleston, at a time when color photography was more or less frowned upon among art photographers,

Quote: "The reception was divided and passionate. The book and show unabashedly forced the art world to deal with color photography, a medium scarcely taken seriously at the time, and with the vernacular content of a body of photographs that could have been but definitely weren’t some average American’s Instamatic pictures from the family album."

Meanwhile Eggleston is accepted in the art world, however, my personal view, many of his works would have hardly chances being awarded by the head curators of 1X. And I suppose, also the voting members in the preceding curation procedure would decide themselves for "not selected".

I would wish myself a little more open minded activity of the curators (mostly the member curators), this could help to increase creativity. 

Cheers, Hans-Martin

Hans-Martin - I agree with what you have written.  A lot of contemporary photography is not to my taste either.  If you are not a fan of Eggleston, I suspect you will not be a fan of Stephen Shore's work either; they had a similar style.  When I took pictures like theirs back in the 1970s I was criticized for taking images like theirs.

We have to be aware that there is a gap between contemporary, critical photography versus the popular photography we see here at 1x.com.  Curators. gallery owners and academics are very much into the genre, while the rest of us can't quite understand why this is the case.  The best comparison I can find is that between popular and classical music.  A fan of popular music can not understand how anyone can listen to classical music and the classical loving group cannot grasp while popular music is so loved.

You are quite right about some of the widely accepted works by some of the great photographers of the past not getting past the curators here at 1x.com.  This site does not cater to those tastes.  I see a lot of images published here that would not do well in club competitions because of glaring technical and compositional problems.  We have to recognize that certain types of images will do well here, while others will not, regardless of tastes and merit.

Hi Hans,

Interesting post.  I have not read many frank opinions from the non-masses inside 1x.  I agree with the post.  Unfortunately, whether it is a gallery, the American Medical Association, a lawyers club or guild, its's survival, standards are it's first priority.  Change is hard.  To the credit of 1x, I think it has changed some.

Al

Hi Manfred,

I think your quote in the prior post above,  "We have to be aware that there is gap between contemporary, critical photography versus the popular photography we here at 1x" is a misrepresentation of photography today.  I think that the photography on 1x is not popular with the masses.

Sometimes when I recommend 1x to other photographers on different sites, they send me a reply saying that photos on 1x or too good for what they can do.

I think the realism of Stephen Shore and Eggleston is most popular today, except today it is done with cellphones.

Sometimes "what goes around, comes around".  Today there are many young up-and-coming pro photographers doing this kind of photography all over the world, if you look at published photo journals.

Al