I was browsing the internet for photography forums when I came across a thread discussing the difference of a "snapshot" and a "photograph". My professor in the same way shames us to a pile of dust when she sees what she calls a snapshot posted on the wall on critique day. To define a photograph is as problematic as defining art which until now cannot be defined universally by the so many art theorists, writers, and the academe. Photography is a very young form of art emerging only from the industrial revolution which adds to its problematic terms. There are even statements protesting photography as an art form. Charles Baudelaire for one said "As the photographic industry became the refuge of all failed painters with too little talent, or too lazy to complete their studies, this universal craze not only assumed the air of blind imbecile infatuation, but took on the aspect of revenge…the badly applied advances of photography, like all purely material progress for that matter, have contributed to the impoverishment of French artistic genius." I don't think there is a need to elaborately defend photography as an art form, because today art's definition itself is already a problem. Anything can be called art, the word itself is used in vague intentions. Many already believe the capabilities of the photographer to express and to use the images he creates in enriching ideas. If you would want to argue against that point I would point out to Walter Benjamin's essays on art and the mechanical age. Therefore the intention here is to express my thoughts on the line dividing the terms "snapshot" and photograph".
I have read several statements on the issue dividing the two terms. The forum I read defined the time it takes to create a photograph compared to a snapshot. A snapshot doesn't need time, in contrast before the photograph is created, the photographer takes time to think, imagine and maybe impart an idea into the image. If that's the case though some of the images I have created out of random instinct can no longer be considered a photo. Many photographers have worked on instinct. Time spent on adjusting settings and composition for an advanced photographer just happens without counting time. Thus shooting time is reduced to split second, a professional I think would take photographs faster than an ordinary person taking snapshots would.
Another argument puts the decision on the viewer who creates a subjective view. Just like art is problematic If I simply take a picture of a cow eating grass centered and boring then hear someone call me a genius I don't think he knows what he just said. Credibility of the viewer might be a problem in defining a photograph this way. As many have criticized the elite for it's capabilities to impose an idea, we cannot deny the existence of the knowledge of those who know or have learned the artist's, in this case a photographer's vision and intention. Although for the many ideas of art we cannot just be objective and stay with a Kantian idea of the genius universal and limited to certain people. I believe it is necessary for a piece of art be defined constructively as well. This arrives to once again a dillema that art critiques have not concluded until now.
Equipment as a factor to the definition would move us a bit as well. In one of our critiquing sessions a classmate of mine posted a photograph that disgusted my professor because it is boring. She exclaimed "what is that? you can take a snapshot like that using an instamatic." Noted that she used the word snapshot gave an idea that what she wanted was otherwise. But with this statement a conclusion that an SLR is the only camera that can be used to create a photo is plain wrong. There are photos out there that have been made using a wide variety of cameras yet seem to have brought up interests. On intent and equipment we can see that the current movement of lomographers use point and shoot cameras without the intent of an idea. On a side note though lomography could be compared to the abstract expressionist movement. Thus crosses out the equipment as defining the difference.
A person using an SLR might produce a snapshot and a Pro using a toy camera can create photographs. This reminds me of a term I have read several times in the internet; "to take a snapshot" and "create a photograph". The word "create" and "take" is used to differentiate the two terms. The word create or make suggests the photograph is made from scratch, from nothing, while the word take shows us that there is already something existing before the image is printed on paper. Photographers are well known for their vision and the way they see things. As to what a normal person would see in plain view can be a world of ideas for the artist. Therefore the photograph in this sense is an image created from the photographer's mind. In the words of Ansel Adams "When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without" The vision, or seeing it before clicking the shutter. The intent of an artist to show the world that he sees. A sign of a good photograph is the photographer who can see. This does not conclude though the objective definition of a good photo.
There are many photographers out there who see the world in different ways. The style or motif can be driven by many factors influencing the artist's vision. All we can do is anticipate what the photographer wants to say. Therefore we learn to define when we see and look at good photographs. From the many beautiful photos that we see we learn to define which is which. The more photos we look at the more we learn. The vast styles to construct a unity in the diversity of definitions.


R. De Ocampo
Quotes taken from:
[link]
_________________
Comment if there are questions or critiques


.