Is it a fine line or a broad line between technically good photography and artistic photography?

Is there a difference between the two, are they mutually exclusive or do they blur together and overlap?
Is there a line at all ?

I tend to think that there is no line, that artistic photography can be technically good and vice versa, but what about when an artistic photograph is in theory technically bad, yet it works as a piece of art ? Is it a good photograph ?

I'd like to hear what others think, my mind is open, I'm a painter who knows little about photographic technology, but I have a definite interest.

I'd just like to mention that I am not responsible for any thumbs down happening here. I like all the answers.

Hi, Lizzie. Photography is probably the only visual art where this question, or one like it, seems to get asked.

You can technically nail an image, both in terms of composition and exposure, and have a perfectly good image devoid of anything but technical perfection. It's an illustration. Maybe 98% of Ansel Adams work was in that class.

Through happenstance, you can get a technically deficient to just plain technically lousy image that is artistic. It can be 'art' to the viewer because of what they bring to the table, what they put into the picture. Whoever took the picture put nothing into it and whatever the medium imposed on the image just comes with the territory.

On the face of it, it seems that technically good doesn't have anything to do with whether a photograph is artistic, or even art. Conversely, a technically bad photograph can be considered art. There is one caveat, though. A technically good photogaph will always be a good photograph. A technically bad photo, if it doesn't reach the level of artistic through intention or accident, will always be a cr_ppy picture.

I don't think the dividing line, wherever you want to place it, has anything to do with the technology per se. It has to do with the intent of the photographer and, if they have mastered their craft to the point where correct is no longer defined technically, such as correct exposure, but is defined by the conscious use of exposure to create mood, for instance, then you have reached the level of artistic.

Once that photographer is using everything available to them in the medium to consciously create an image that is a coherent statement, then I feel you are in the realm of art. It may be technically correct, in whole or in part, or it may violate everything for it to be a correct picture. You can then say something about whether it is good art, or not, or whether an image conveys a message or the photographer even has a message, but technically correct isn't a useful metric anymore. You start discussing what the photographer has done, even though it is technical in nature, in terms of whether it serves his or her intent.

To answer your question about a technically bad photograph being a work of art, so is it a good photograph, the short answer is yes. A good photography is the one that gets the intended job done.

They can be exclusive ... but I like photographic art that is done technically well better... usually.

You can not compare it. Art is a 'purpose', good photography is a tool or skill. People say about Picasso that he could not paint, his work looked like that of a toddler. It still is art and he can paint (even so you can recognize it).

A good artist can make good photo art. A skilled photographer can make good pictures. The two may meet but can still result in a 'messy' art photo. It becomes semantics.

I don't think there is a line at all. I tend to define a great image as visually captivating, able to stimulate a feeling or mood without words. Sometimes to capture and portray that mood, the "rules" are best broken. You know my personal interest at the moment is the landscape, and most of the time I'm out at dawn or dusk. If I compose an image at sunrise, I cannot allow the exposure to run long enough to render the scene as mid-day, or the entire concept is lost. So I live with a bit of underexposure and the resulting grain, blocked up shadows, and the loss of detail in some important foreground elements.

In other words, sometimes I will throw the technical "rules" under the bus to achieve the concept I have in my mind. Is that artistic, I don't know, but I'd like to think an image I create that lives up to my minds expectations is art. This is a highly subjective subject however, art is a general term these days.

I hope this answer addresses the theme of your question, because it's a great one. (the question, not my answer)

You only need to study the history of photography to find the answer to this question. The first case in point, Diane Arbus, one of the absolute most important and prolific fine art photographers of the 20th century. Her artistic vision was acute from concept to composition, yet her technical skills in the darkroom left a lot to be desired, just look at her prints up close. Backtracking through the timeline of photo history nearly 100 years prior to Arbus was a so-called accidental-artist by the name of EJ Belloq who produced some fascinating yet technically challenged photography whose textures and subject matter was so compelling that decades later an artist by the name of Joel Peter Witkin decides to model his photography after this guy. Witkin will purposely print his images to give it a gritty, scratchy, hazy texture similar to that of Belloqs.
Anyhow the thing is this, after the fall of the academy system of art in the late 19th century there has been a tradition in art, and that is to go against the grain of established practice. Obviously there are technical rules regarding photography, for instance developer always comes before stop bath, and though you may not get around these rules, there are no rules in art that say photography has to be done one way and one way only. If for instance, Joel Peter Witkin produced photos with the same philosophy that Ansel Adams did, Witkins images probably wouldnt have the same impact. Furthermore, in the last decade there has been a resurgent interest in antiquated or alternative photo techniques, techniques which are far from perfect but purposely show the hand of the creator. In some art circles it has been said that imperfection, the hand of the human creator is considered the key to art.

Personally I think they are intertwined and difficult to categorize separately. Although I'd be the first to exhort beginning photographers to "Learn the Rules of Composition" I'll also be the first to tell them that sometimes they have to be broken to make the image you want to make.

Robert Capa once said "I'd rather have a strong image that is technically bad than vice versa."

The Jan. 2008 issue of Shutterbug Magazine features "fine art photography" so you might enjoy reading the articles. If you don't want to buy it, go to shutterbug.com and read them there.

Its a medium dotted line.

sometimes a terrible photo makes a great image...i nearly deleted an awful photo of something i shot at a friend's wedding recently, and The Boss stopped me, she wanted it in her collection of images (?this was just a bunch of blurrrrrs), though she agreed that it shouldn't be on the disk we gave to the couple.
i usually peruse the photos immediately after downloading and delete any bad ones (even cyberspace is limited) then ask her what she thinks is well composed, etc....and delete some more....(kind of like tossing out bits of rusted metal and broken glass and bones and feathers, it just doesn't always get done as cleanly as i would like.)

I was going to try to answer this one; however Puppy Zwolle said it for me.

It seems to me that creating a "technically good" photograph requires only mastery of the tools involved, while "artistic" photography is the creative process of using those tools to express one's specific vision.

If one's objective is about creating images rather than mere technical proficiency, and if one is happy with the finished image, then it is a moot point whether the photograph is "good" or not.

Thanks for bringing up a challenging, well reasoned subject. I wish we had more discussions like this here.

Well we can use music as an example. If one does not know how to play the piano then one can not create any piano music of any artistic merit.
Now to the other extreme there are people who are technically proficient at the piano that can never create an original piece of music.
So the answer lies somewhere in between.
However when you are talking about the masterpieces, (this goes for almost any artistic endeavor), the artist has mastered both the technical and artistic side of his craft.

Heres my answer: When I'm looking at a good picture, when I am staring at a piece of photography so amazing that it captivates me. That it evokes an emotion. I don't give a care how the focus is or if the exposure is a third stop off or if it follows the rule of thirds.

THAT is the goal of photography. Usually the two (art and technicality) go hand in hand. But they don't need to. Its the substance that matters.

If you are going to compare music and painting and photography. Then do it right.
A piano player can win an oscar even if he plays only technically as long as their is no mistake. Another player can play the same piece with the same technique but puts his soul into it. This player will also win but the audience will have felt his emotions more than the first.

So, having said this, technical and artistic are both good buttheir will be a fine line between the two. I will certainly have more the urge to eat an artistic apple than a technical one.
This is just an opinion and YES, I am a Professional Graphic Artist/Designer and a musician also. Best of both worlds.

Interesting question. The answer is sometimes it is and sometimes it isnt. So I do agree there is no line. Art is art most rules dont apply its more about emotion and communication then technique. However some technique is always required. Example is a great artist can't just pick up a camera and make art and the reverse is true.