It seems to me that the only right answer to this question would be
very simple. You just have to change the preposition "or” for "and”.
Photography is both an art form and a form of mass communication. I’ve
also been trying to find any form of art that can’t be considered as a
form of communication. No, it is not possible to do that because any
kind of art presupposes transmitting some information. The only
difference between all forms of art is the way they use to encode this
information. Music employs sound coding, painting uses visual images
for representing its main ideas, and cinema nowadays takes advantage of
the whole number of means of data transfer. Photography also makes use
of visual images but it combines the features of both cinema and
painting. So it is not hard to make a conclusion that there is no art
without communication as there is no art without idea, that is
information. Of course, many people can say that communication does not
imply art. That is quite right, and I won’t be surprised if I hear that
photography can’t be regarded as a form of art. But let’s check up the
meaning of the word "art” in the dictionary. Art is the conscious
production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other
elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the
production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. Art is also
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic
principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary
significance. Isn’t that true if we apply these definitions to
photography? I suppose it is doubtless that photos can be beautiful;
they sometimes compel our attention even more than paintings by great
artists. So photography is an independent art form which pursues
communicative aims. The only question that is left for us is how we can
define whether this or that photo has any right to be called a piece of
art.
|