I should really start off with a little bit of history which is in no way concise but if your interested here are a couple of good books you might want to look at:

• The Photograph: A Visual and Cultural History by Graham Clarke
• Photography: A Concise History by Ian Jeffrey
• Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography by Roland Barthes

In the beginning…

Photography was generally reserved for the scientists and the technically minded. Paul Delaroche might have been (some say mis-quoted) of proclaiming that “from today, painting is dead!” But that was perhaps and early predication that photographers would replace painters on the high street. Delaroche was actually an active promoter of the Daguerreotype “Daguerre’s process completely satisfies all the demands of art, carrying essential principles of art to such perfection that it must become a subject of observation and study even to the most accomplished painters.”

Even in it’s early days photography was all about bringing images to the masses, from the Daguerreian salons that opened in Paris to The Pencil of Nature produced by Fox Talbot that became known as the first photographically illustrated book to be commercially published.

There are photographers who have stood out more as artists rather than photographers, Julia Margaret Cameron is a perfect example of this…… technically pretty bad images but her portraits (in the artistic sense) are of the highest standard.

In 1900 the Brownie was born and the world introduced to the phrase “You push the button, we do the rest.” 90 years later Kodak did it again and photography was changed forever.

Professional artists and Professional Photographers

Photography, even 160 or so years after it’s invention, still has a difficult relationship with art. Many professional artists who use photography see it more as a tool and would refer to themselves as an artist first and photographer second (if at all).

There are of course many great photographers out there who sell there work as art but unfortunately they are in somewhat of a minority. There are those whose work we look at  retrospectively as art worthy but these are often popular culture photographers.

The term professional photographer is pretty clear, there’s a standard of work for which ever discipline you are in, there’s a standard accept as good or high. I have heard some other amusing definitions…… you’re a pro if at least 50% of your income comes from photography or that you’re Full Time.

These are rather silly elitists notions that I wouldn’t take much notice of if I were you…….. in fact if anyone says this to you they probably dealing with there own insecurities so it’s best left alone.

How can we define modern photography?

It would be far too easy to say it’s a tool for expression…….. especially if you don’t understand the fundamentals of the tool you’re using.

Digital photography has more to do with science and mathematics than it ever has, and just because we don’t do all the hard work doesn’t make it any less the case.

What frustrates me in my own photography is that I can’t express exactly what I’m thinking or feeling. The simple reason is that I’m not a good enough photographer…..yet.

Does that make me any less of an artist? Arguable……. no….. and that’s my problem when people refer to their photography as art.

The Great Masters were known not only for their concepts but for the remarkable control they had over their tools and materials.

This is prevalent in Greek sculpture more than anything else I can think of. If you want to photograph the perfect model then go the Louvre!

So if we’re not going to call it a tool for expression then what?

Well…….. maybe it is a tool for expression. In fact I wonder how many people can write as well as they take a picture? (This comes from a dyslexic photographer).

In fact I can say that without a doubt that a simple image than be understood better by most people in the world better than this sentence.

Just because someone says they’re expressing themselves doesn’t mean that expression is being effectively communicated.

which brings me on to….

The Perfect Image

This is the reason I nearly failed my photography degree over ten years ago…… I was trying to find a way to take the perfect image…… it turns out I should have just copied Martin Parr like everyone else did!

Because of the mathematical and scientific construct of photography it has to be possible to create what can be seen universally as a perfect image.

And the big BUT

Can perfection truly exist in photography as it does in science or will it just be trying to communicate the idea of perfection?

Can photography be anything more than objective?

If we want to be better photographers shouldn’t we strive for what can seem the unattainable goal of perfection?

I did start this article off with a little reading list but if you read one book in 2011 then it should be this one:

The Moon and Sixpence (1919) by William Somerset Maugham

Charles Strickland is the original Uncle Bob…… but don’t let the leprosy put you off!

and on the subject of striving for perfection…… Perfume (1985) by Patrick Süskind is great reading.