Photography - Art and/or Science? It Depends!

Photography is often said to be both art and science, or perhaps more science than art.  This seems to stem from the highly technical aspects of making photographs with cameras and software, and the commonly held belief that photographs are supposed to record the truth of reality.  However, photography is simply a medium of expression and communication.  It is neither art nor science per se but can be used to make both art and science, not necessarily at the same time.  Art is a subjective expression about our world, and often comes more from our imaginations than reality.  Although equally creative, science is about objective truth about the world.  Photography is a medium that can be used to do both.

Art and science are two different ways of exploring, understanding and expressing what we feel and know about "our world".  The key difference between the two is in the words "feeling" and "knowing".  Art is more about the expression of our personal response, both mental and emotional, to what we encounter in the world.  Science, on the other hand, is more about discovering and understanding objective truth about the "real world" per se.   Art is more about the person making the art and their subjective version of the "real world", often free of the constraints of reality.  Science is all about the objective truth of the real world per se, free of the emotions and biases of the scientist and constrained by reality. 

Using the scientific method, science removes or minimizes the emotions, biases, predilections, etc. of its practitioners (scientists) to create some "objective" output, e.g. new scientific methods or knowledge that is accurate and precise.  Ideally, that output is an expression about the world as it really is and not about what the practitioner wants it to be.  Art is just the opposite. The way of art is to maximize the practitioners' biases, emotions, personalities, etc. to create some personal, "subjective" output, e.g. new artwork.  The output is then more about the practitioners (artists) and what they imagine the world to be, or how they "see" or "feel" about the world, rather than it is about the reality of the world per se.

So, art and science are two different approaches or practices, that, in theory, are mutually exclusive. If you're practicing art, then you're not practicing science, and vice versa.  Thus, whether or not photography, or any other medium or endeavor, is art or science depends on how it's practiced, and not on the tools used.  If the intent is to create a personal expression of some aspect of the world as the practitioner experiences or imagines it, then it's art.  If the intent is to create objective knowledge about or representation of the world, free of the practitioners feelings or predispositions, then it's science. 

Photography can be used to make art and to make science, and perhaps at the same time.  If it's used to create a faithful representation of some aspect of reality, e.g. show what something really looks like at a moment in space and time, then, in effect, the photographer is practicing science.  If it is used to create a personally expressive response to the world independently of any moment in space and time, then, in effect, the photographer is practicing art.  In the former, the resulting photo is "what the photographer actually saw".  In the latter, the resulting photo is "what the photographer felt or imagined" and, sometimes, not necessarily what they saw.

This is true of any medium of expression.  A sculptor that creates accurate busts of a person's head is practicing something more science than art.  A sculptor that creates something that is an abstraction of (or from) reality is practicing art.  The same is true for painters who record reality (think court reporters) and those who create paintings of clocks bending over corners.  Writers can report the truth or make up fantastical poems, sometimes with the same words.  Photo journalists strive to record objective truth (albeit as emotionally as possible), and "fine art" photographers create images from their imaginations.  In my experience with photography, however, "seeing" is often deeply personal. So, "what the photographer actually saw" can be more of a personal, subjective expression than many photographers realize or care to admit.

In reality, the divide between art and science is not quite this so cut.  Science is about uncovering some truth about the real world.  In theory, there should be only one version of that truth.  Using the scientific method, identical scientific endeavors should produce the same result.   But, sometimes that is not the case.  After all, people are the practitioners of science and they are inherently biased and emotional.  And, the world is a messy place.  So, reproducibility is often difficult.  The scientific method is intended to minimize their impact the humans' and the world's messiness on the result. 

On the other hand, years of photographing with other people, has shown me that a group of photographers in the same time and place almost never make the same photographs.  I've been on quite a few trips with the same two people.  I can count the number of "same" photographs we've made on one hand.  This happens because making art is about our personal response to the situation, and we are all very different.  The same is true for artists using other media.  I've watched plein air watercolorists, standing nearly side by side, looking at the same scene, at the same time, make completely different paintings.  Each artists responds differently, feels differently, imagines differently, and will thus create their own artistic expression.

Photography as I practice it can be both art and science, but usually not at the same time.  In practicing photography, my intent is usually more about expressing or interpretating how I feel about the world or how I'd like the world to be, and much less about how the world really is. Sometimes I work hard to disconnect my images from the reality of what "I saw".  On the other hand, I do make photographs that are meant to accurately and realistically represent the thing being photographed.  For example, there are times when make a photos that show someone what it's like if they went to that place, or make photos that accurately show what a client's artwork looks like.  Such photos are intended to show objective reality, and not add anything from my own emotions or imagination.  In the former, I'm practicing photography to make art, in the latter, to make science. 

Perhaps art and science can be practiced at the same time.  Rodin's "The Thinker" is a realistic representation of a human and an expression of the artist's feelings about an important aspect of being a human.  Chuck Close's hyper realistic paintings are certainly his response to or version of something important to him in the world.  Photography, being a recording medium, can be the same.  Edward Weston's "Pepper #30"  is certainly a "realistic" image of a pepper, but it's is also an image that expresses so much more than the object that it is (see the photos below).  So, in photography, as in other artist media, perhaps we can do both art and science at the same time. It's probably best to make our intent clear.  We should recognize when a photo is meant to be art, and not worry about its representation of reality, and recognize when a photo is mean to represent reality and not worry about whether it's art or not.  Whether photography is art and/or science is all about the photographers intent and practice in using the medium, and has little to do with the fact that photographers use sophisticated technology to make images.