Is Photography Science or Art ? (Talking to myself)

It’s a science - and now that I have defined it as a science, I will be able to get on with it and make some progress. I am not denying that it can be used to produce art, but I wonder if photographs produced by following strict composition rules or the copying of ideas, could possibly be described as art. How many times do you open a magazine or book and see similar images: the wet rock in the foreground of a beach, the sycamore leaf sitting in front of a milky waterfall, the short pier disappearing into the lake or sea, the heavy sky sitting over a castle, the stag or elephant silhouetted against a beautiful sunset, bits of a landscape planted on a third etc.? This isn’t art - it is more like photocopying. These people are practising their skills and producing pretty pictures (In many cases very pretty pictures). Fair enough! I will need to do more of it myself ( to improve my technical abilities) but unless it contains an original idea, I could never class it as art. For this reason, I find it quite difficult to copy ideas and scenery - I feel like a fraudster. Perhaps, this is hindering my progress. I need to get art right out of the picture - no pun intended - and concentrate on the science. I can’t handle art.

The Photographer’s Eye by Michael Freeman is one of my favourite photography books. It is an exceptionally good read. Freeman discusses the theory behind composition and design. ‘Design and organization ’ are far easier for me to get a handle on. Forget art.

I suppose this sound as though I do not want to be creative. Not so - I will use the science to be creative and never feel the need to define it as art. This isn't to say that other people's work isn't art.