4
competitor will enter the field: the flat screen mounted on the wall. With
it, it will be possible to present an electronic image in the most beautiful
fluorescent colours or pastels in a living room or even a museum, sho-
wing – if desired – a different image each hour or even every minute.
However, today tradition-minded people still see a higher value for the
status of their home in a painting. It is different for the generation of 30-
to 40-year-olds. They have grown up with photography – then still in a
“pre-art state“, and for them, the successful photographic art of today is
the kept promise of their youth.
In the end, however, art in general and photographic art in particular are
nothing else than what a majority of viewers associate with this term. Be-
cause of this, it is pointless to enter a rating discussion – alone due to the
fact that majorities change during the course of time. Only remember, for
instance, that van Gogh’s works were not even viewed as art during his
lifetime. Accordingly, the following question arises: in the context of pho-
tography, must one speak of art? The answer of course is no. One of the
most famous photographers, Henri Cartier-Bresson, saw himself as a
craftsman throughout his lifetime and consequently abstained from limi-
ting his editions. Then in whose interest is it to ennoble photography to
art? First and foremost, it is in the interest of those who earn money with
photographic prints: in other words, the gallery owners, auctioneers and
museum professionals. In addition, the artists themselves feel affirmed
and elevated by their new identities that have been given to them by the
art trade and by the museums.
How can we determine whether a picture has an artistic presence? Is the-
re an indicator for art in a picture? One can assume that the majority of
viewers remember significant pictures for a longer time than less im-
portant ones, even after having looked at them once. A useful “art indica-
tor” can be whether the picture evokes an intellectual or spiritual experi-
ence and how long this is remembered.
Does photographic art exist? The answer has to be yes – but only if a ma-
jority decides in favour of it and, in this case in particular, where all possi-
bilities that computer technology offers for influencing the composition
are used.
More pictures than time
Today, modern digital photography has opened up for mankind what Jo-
seph Beuys was referring to when he said that “everything is art, and eve-
ryone is an artist“. With a digital camera, a computer, an ink jet printer
and Internet access, it has become possible for billions of people to ex-
plore their graphic potential, to compare it and to display it. In photogra-
phy, the equality of billions has been achieved for the first time in a
branch of the arts, worldwide. Poor and rich people, the educated and
the uneducated, the old and the young take pictures of whatever they
deem worthy of depicting, in any minute, at any place. Thus a daily in-
crease of a half a billion to a billion photographic images occurs, mostly
in digital storage media. The person taking the photo does not even need
an aesthetic visual ability in order to shoot a presentable photograph.
Modern digital cameras already have an automatic face recognition func-
tion.
Since an anti-aesthetic attitude has established itself in museum art since
the mid-20th century, often the trivial image is enough in order to beco-
