Are photography and printmaking valid forms of fine art?

¶ … Photography and Printmaking Really Art?

Although photography and printmaking rely on mechanical processes for their outcomes, painting and drawing rely on the hand of the artist. Despite these fundamental differences in methodology, it is legitimate to argue that printmaking and photography are both valid forms of fine art because, like painting and drawing, they also rely on the mind of the artist for their outcomes. Certainly, the choice of definition of fine art would play a role in the distinction between these media, but at the heart of matter is the interpretation of what the artist, photographer, printmaker or even photojournalist considers the salient factors that should be communicated in their respective medium. For instance, Margolis (1962) emphasizes that, "Sometimes, the issue at stake is the definition of fine art. Sometimes, it concerns the formulation of criteria of aesthetic merit [but] philosophically, the theory of expression has been most closely linked to the definition of fine art, aesthetic qualities, and aesthetic judgment" (p. 28). From this perspective, photography, printmaking and photojournalism can certainly be regarded as being fine art. Indeed, who can forget the poignant black-and-white image of the naked Vietnamese child running down the road after being attacked by American napalm, or the American flag being raised atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima? These photojournalistic images have assumed the status of icons of these eras, and though it is doubtful that many Americans would want picture of the former hanging on their living room wall, it is likely that many have the latter placed there. Just as painting and drawing require an interpretation by the artist, so too do photography and printmaking.