Photography as an Art and Science
In one sense, a photograph is a faithful and honest representation of an object or moment. That honesty in representation value depends on who is viewing the photograph. Photographs appear to be a direct trace of an object or a moment, which means that they can serve as pieces of data. Photography has always had a role to play in science for this exact reason but this is not to say that this is the only use for photos. Although photography can be seen as a reflection of the real word, the ability to alter a photograph during and after taking a picture puts its credibility into question. Post-production editing, influence from a photographer’s perspective, and the viewer’s own interpretation intersect to bring into question the presumed truth behind a photograph.
In the year 1859, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described the photograph as “the mirror with a memory” in his article, “The Stereoscope and the Stereograph,” published in The Atlantic Monthly. An ordinary mirror can reflect other objects in an evanescent manner—nothing is ever permanent and no memories are retained. However, when an image is captured on the mirrored surface of the daguerreotype, it is the perpetual reflection of a certain point in history—one excites specific memories and emotions. The aura of these memories and emotions are as much a part of the photograph as its scientific claims. Can something that is seen as a mirror of reality replace fine art? As technology advanced, photography required far less manual skill than painting and could be reproduced infinitely. These characteristics clash with the defining qualities of fine art prior to its invention.
Photography is as much an artistic expression as it is scientific data. The photograph does represent something in its general state, which is useful for scientists and historians, but there is another side of the image to consider. The photographer decides what to show and how to show it, meaning that the product is carefully shaped by an artist. This is achieved through a multitude of photographic techniques and methods that the photographer meticulously uses. This complex intersection between science and art is what makes photography so compelling. The undeniable truth of a photograph as it is initially perceived may diminish its artistic value and increase its scientific value. Yet the ability to alter the truth of a photograph may also challenge its scientific integrity, increasing its artistic value. This duality in photography—and the influence of the viewer’s interpretation on that duality—makes photography a fascinating addition to the arts and the sciences.