Why Photography is Not Art

In Roger Scruton's essay, "Why Photography Is Not Art", an effort is made to question photography as a genuine art form. Roger spends much of his essay arguing that photography is merely a weak imitation of an object, rather than a carefully crafted depiction of a subject with its own aesthetic properties. Due to the rapid rise of photography all around the globe, his viewpoints are highly controversial. It is important for us to study both sides of the argument, because photography is so important in capturing world history. Photography is a rather new concept, yet its importance is paramount in seeing how others live. Photos allow us to see and capture a specific moment in time, just like a wide array of already accepted art forms. I find it truly interesting that Roger challenges photography as art. I am certainly not a photographer, but I never knew some people challenged photography's artistic merit. I will argue today that Roger Scruton is wrong in his belief that photography has merely a "casual and not intentional" relationship with its subject (Scruton, 89). In essence, photographs lack true depiction. I will also argue that the majority of photographs due indeed, have their own aesthetic properties. This is something Roger Scruton fails to recognize.

Towards the beginning of his essay, Roger Scruton speaks on the topic of intention. Roger feels that photographs are merely, "records of how an actual object looked..." (Scruton, 90). The subject and the picture itself embrace only a causal relationship. This leads Roger to conclude that the only aesthetic properties a photo has is through the subject itself, not the photo. Roger states, "Here the interest in the picture is derivative: it lies in the fact that the pict...

... middle of paper ...

...e photo is taken. He explains, "...the decesions both to use members of a collection of images as part of a photographic exibition and how to use them can be and often are made well after the photographs have been taken" (Alward, 14). The thought process doesn't end after the camera snaps the photo. In fact, it extends well beyond the initial shot.

Works Cited

Goldblatt, David, and Lee Brown. Aesthetics: A Reader in Philosophy of the Arts . 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 76-94. Print.

Scruton, Roger. Why Photography Is Not Art. 1981. 89-94. Print.

Walton, Kendall. Transparent Pictures. 1984. 76-83. Print.

Alward, Peter. (2012). Transparent Representation: Photography and the Art of Casting. Journal Of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 70(1), 9-18. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6245.2011.01494.x