Photography, Documentation or Art?
So is photography documentation of reality or art? This has been a question or criticism for a long time depending which side of the argument you are on. The truth is it is both.
Photography can be used to document your possessions for insurance purposes, it can be used to identify criminals, it can used to document events or in scientific research. And in all of these situations it can be used honestly or manipulated dishonestly. So photography can be manipulated today easier faster and in more ways it’s artistic potential is greater than ever.
So when is it art? I think the best definition of art is when the sum is greater than the parts. When paper, ink, mat and frame become more than they are by themselves. Photography’s art starts with the photographer’s vision. By carefully crafting just the perspective a photographer can completely alter the meaning of what could have been documentary shot. The viewer of the final print is left with the what stories are possible within the frame. But just outside the frame there may have been a clue to a completely different story. Besides perspective light, exposure, camera movement and focus can be crafted manipulated before a print ever reaches a computer.
Once a photo reaches a computer the artistic possibilities increase logarithmically. With digital manipulation in software totally different photos can be stitched together, color can and exposure can be altered, perspective can be changed. Prints can further be altered by the choice of print media and the presentation format. So yes photography can both document and serve as art, but in both situations the photographer must be clear in their vision and honest in their approach.

