Is Photography an Art

Keller: The History of Photography
Keller’s (1984) essay on “The Myth of Art Photography” was written before the explosion of Internet photography and this is evident in quotes such as: “The strategic purpose behind this generous sponsorship of Art Photography was, of course, to persuade the ordinary amateur that he too, could produce ‘artistic’ wonders - if he only invested enough money in technical equipment” (p. 268). Keller argues that the explosion of the photography industry and the elevation of photography to an art form has a commercial basis, in other words, to sell photography equipment. Photography has the seductive allure of allowing anyone the illusion that he or she can become an artist simply by purchasing a camera, in contrast to the decades needed to learn the fine art of sketching and painting by hand.
Of course, today, all an amateur photographer needs is a camera phone and an Instagram account to generate interest in his or her art. While better equipment and photo-editing software may be helpful, professional photographers are threatened as iPhone photos threaten to overtake their professional work because of their lack of expense. The same types of arguments that Keller was making against photography in general are now made against iPhone photography by professional photographers. There is a similar, dismissive attitude taken by Keller in relation to artistic photography as a concept, ironically, in the eras before photography became so easy and commonplace. Keller considers the appropriate role of photography to be relegated to personal snapshots and capturing intimate moments purely for the family. Instead, “it is obvious that the massive support of the big manufacturers blew an essentially modest and marginal amateur movement out of proportion” clearly considering his own evaluation of the merits of photography to be unbiased (Keller, 1984, p. 269).
Keller does admit that the rise of amateur art photography does lie in opposition to “Romantically-exaggerated ideas of artistic genius” that suggested that pursuing the arts should be relegated only to certain, select groups of individuals (Keller, 1984, p. 52). The rise of juried exhibitions of artistic works of photography were designed to exist as gatekeeping functions, to ensure that photography was indeed enshrined as an art form. The concept of high art as something which must be determined by experts was effectively designed to keep professional artists in business and to perpetuate the divide between so-called real artists and amateurs. Ultimately, of course, these techniques backfired and created a reactionary impulse amongst amateurs to elevate their art in public estimation.
The debate chronicled in Keller highlights the many complex reasons that people enjoy photography. Some of photography’s pleasure may be derived from preserving personal moments. There is also the pleasure of creating something new from one’s personal life and perspective and transmitting it into art. People can still enjoy conventional artistic photography but that does not mean they do not feel as though they have the right to make their own art using their own equipment and capabilities. As can be seen today, to some extent the fascination and ability to create art out of one’s personal life and easily transmit such art to the world may detract from some of the business of professional photography, as amateur technology becomes more sophisticated and cheaper. But it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle and to deny people the joys of photography fostered by technology. Furthermore, by making photographic technology more accessible, arguably this gives certain marginalized groups the ability to take photographs of their worlds and show their perspectives in a way that even a photographic journalist could not readily access.

References
Keller, U. (1984) The myth of art photography: A sociological analysis.
History of Photography, 8:4, 249-275, DOI: 10.1080/03087298.1984.10442233