Art (re)defined?

I was enjoying this poster, which led me to think yet again about whether photography is an art, or not.  Evidently experts don’t agree on a correct answer.  (In any case I do mix with all classes of society)


I feel passionate about my own photography.  People ask me what is wrong during any of the very few times I venture out without my camera around my neck.  And I spend so many hours editing the images.  I used to worry that I shouldn’t be spending so much time with photography.  But it seems somehow to be driven from my spiritual life.  Someone once wrote that artists have to be good a solving the myriad of problems that come up during their work.  They just use different tools to solve their problems.  I do feel I have developed a set of mental/spiritual/artistic tools for my photographic work.  The times the artist is involved in practicing their art are usually times of silence and deep inward listening.

Somehow being deeply connected to beauty, however you are led to do so, is really important for your life in general.  It is especially important as a part of my spiritual life.  (Those of you who know me know I can’t stop myself here–just one more thing that really bothers me about economically depressed neighborhoods is the lack of beauty there, other than the people themselves).

Returning to the original question, I always end up thinking how could something that creates so much beauty, and helps make others aware of beauty, not be art?  I just now realized that to me, it is my passion that makes it art for me.

So, instead of my previous view that artists become passionate about some area of art, couldn’t it really be that whatever someone is passionate about, that is art?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply