Is it art or is it science? Many people ask this when discussing the true nature of digital photography. Whether it is art or science depends on your point of view.
Is it art?
Digital photography can be considered art simply because there is an allowance for the expression of emotion. It is a continuation of drawing or painting. Through modification using digital tools, the digital photograph can be altered to allow for more input of the artist’s expression. Digital photos are not just a capturing of a real-life event, but, rather an interpretation of that event manipulated through photo editing techniques.
Even a simple change, making the photo in black and white rather than color, can convey an entirely different emotion in a photograph.
Without editing, digital photography is still considered art. It is the artist’s eye that leads to them capturing a great subject, expressing emotions and statements through the capturing of visual subjects.
People who support the “artistic nature of digital photography” also think that emotional messages can be conveyed through the aesthetics of the photo. Each photograph’s beauty is credited to the individual taking photos.
Two photographers standing side-by-side will rarely convey the exact same image, each showing their individual interpretation of the scene in front of them.
The artistic nature of digital photography is rarely a product that can be scene with the naked eye. With the camera and computer, each artist can alter an image or scene to present what they want to show.
Is it science?
Many people would argue that digital photograph is, indeed, science. Unlike painting or drawing which comes from the mind of the artist, a digital photo comes from something that exists in reality.
In this argument, the photographer doesn’t make photographs, they merely take them.
The editing process also provides an argument regarding the scientific nature of digital photography.
In editing, photographers will make adjustments based on a series of steps that can be repeated over and over again to achieve constant results. This constancy of results renders digital photography a science.
These arguments will always make us question what is the true nature of digital photography. Both the science and the art arguments are valid and there appears to be no evidence that makes it exclusively art or science.
Digital photography’s true nature will always be a paradox that will be solved when one person takes a digital photograph. The way that person treats that photo in the process will reveal the true nature of digital photography to them.