Digital Photography: Behind the Lens: Art or Science?

Want to use this image? Go ahead and click here for more info.

So we’ve had a few quite technical photography posts, so I thought it might be nice to cover some philosophical considerations of photography.  Namely, is photography a science, or is it an art?  There are many articles around this topic, and I will link a few at the bottom of the page should you wish to think more about this, or get other people’s thoughts.

But my thoughts are this: it’s both. Photography, like any art, is evolved around a specific set of instruments that accomplish a specific outcome.  The idea behind it is supposed to evoke both a visceral and emotional response that connects the viewer with the artist through the work.  Photography, like a good scientific study, will come to a conclusion that gives the viewer a larger understanding of the world, and how our world fits together, and what influence the viewer might have on the world.

Want to use this image? Go ahead and click here for more info.

Art, to me, is about extending a hand of inspiration, hope, joy, and connection to anyone who wishes to view it.  It’s about making a structure that makes sense in the context of the world.  Photography slows down and holds a moment in time so that we can pull it out later and examine, remember, or experience that moment again, or for the first time.  A great photograph does all those things simultaneously, connecting with a viewer’s heart and brain.

This is my argument that photography is not just art, and not just science: it is both.  A well-rounded photograph, like a well-rounded person holds depths of information and knowledge that are in conflict and contrast with each other, and it is this tension that makes the shot work well.

Do you think photography is an art or a science?  Tell me in the comments.