Is photography design?

This is getting circular and silly. Perhaps I can put an end to it.

First off, art vs. design. Without going to much deeper, I think they are not mutually exclusive. A working definition I think could be that art is expressive (ie. the artist is communicating to the viewer an emotion, message, etc.) while design is impressive (ie. provides a function for the user). That being said, certainly art can be design and design can be art. At it’s most basic, you could say that most art is also design in the way that art is also about providing the function of a an emotional experience. This function is fully valid in design as it is a basic function on the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and really no different than the primary function of a teddy bear or the secondary function of a car, or other expressive designed object.

Now then, in photography, there are obviously different kinds I think we need to separate. There is photography as documentation (ie. snap a pic of something with your iPhone) in which the photo itself is just a particular media (ie. 500 years ago you’d draw it or paint it), and photography as an endeavor unto itself, which includes commercial photography, artistic photography, etc. The photo is the end result regardless of if it is part of a larger whole (ie. ad campaign, put in a frame, photoshopped, etc.).

Design is a process of making things (“things” used as a shorthand as obviously you can also design UI, UX, non-tangibles) that have a particular intended function. In the process of doing so, various tools are used such as pencils, paper, CAD, whatever. The design is then manifested or manufactured where additional inputs such as tooling, engineering, etc. are involved. At the end, the design is also part of a larger whole, such as a brand, a package, a marketing strategy, distribution, etc.

Thus, I propose that -

  1. photography (not snapshots) is purposeful and the intent of the photographer = intent of a designer
  2. in photography anemotion or visual message is the function of the photograph = function of a designed object
  3. photography being a part of something more is no different than design being part of a larger process or system.

Therefore photography, if all above is qualified, is = design.

R

Agreed on both points :smiley:

Richard, coming in on the third page and tying it all into a tight closing argument. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, plus one for Richard.

Maybe we should ask some photographers why they call themselves photographers and not designers.

Because calling yourself a photographer increases your chances of getting laid.

In many ways a photographer is a designer; a designer of photographs. From composing the subjects in their desired location, creating the type of light that they’re looking for, to choosing the DOF and adding processing techniques. All of this is the design of the image.

Would I call a photographer a designer? No, I’d call him a photographer. Though, if there was no such title, perhaps it would be a photograph designer. A graphic designer uses graphical elements to ‘design’ an image. It’s a fine line.

This reminds me of the design vs engineering thread…
Designers design
Engineers engineer
Photographers photograph

Yes they may share some characteristics. But obviously they are clearly different.
You don’t hire a photographer to design a car
You don’t hire an engineer to take a photograph
You don’t hire a designer to engineer a car

We are not talking about job titles. In the same way a fashion designer and industrial designer and graphic designer are not all the same.

R

IMO, there are tons of different types and meanings of design. Finding a single answer of “yes” or “no” to “is photography design” is futile without 1st finding the impossible answer of “what is design”.

Is sandwich design, design?

http://www.sandwich.org.uk/awards/2011/designer.shtml

Sure. Why not.

Again, I see design as the purposeful creation of “things” with intent, at it’s most basic definition.

R

I agree with Yo in all this. The photograph is a tool used to capture an image, or even a design in which case it is the process taken by the photographer to adjust the lighting, and setup the subject/object that he/she is about to capture on photo. Otherwise how else will he/she be able to show his/her work.

So yes photographers can be designers, but a photograph is not a design it is the mean used to capture a design or a moment in time.

And with the same logic, this mug is not a design. It is a tool used to hold coffee.

No, iab, that is a photograph of a tool to hold coffee. That jpeg won’t hold any fluid at all.

Thank you Yo.
Show me the coffee mug in real life and I’ll point out the design to you. Show what is in the photograph in real life and I’ll point out the design to you.

The image is not the actual design. It is just the image of the design. Because you were not able to get on the plane/car/bike/ to come to me and show me the actual design/installation it was easier and economical for you to post an image of it.

A mug is bonded cermanic particles.

A photograph is inks drops or in the case of the image on screen, photons hitting your eye.

By your definition, what I am typing are not words, just images of words. With your logic, I cannot communicate with you beacuase these aren’t words.

Again, graphic design is design. A stand-alone photo can be graphic design. I posted examples.

this conversation has degraded to the drunken arguments I have with my friends. At which point my girlfriend says “get in the cab its time to go home.”

Nxakt: I believe that Subway employees are referred to as sandwich designers (or maybe its sandwich artist, but i guess the debate over whether they are artists or designers is for a different thread)

Wouldn’t call a subway employee a designer since all they do is assemble… :unamused: They do it very well though

Anyway, its still not clear to me whether photography is design or not. But the more I think about the definition of design it becomes a really broad term. First off I might have been quit narrow minded about the term designer, when one says he’s a designer first thing comes up in my head is a concept/product/graphic/fashion designer (or anything related to these), jobs mainly inside the creative sector. That’s not so strange I think because this board is a design board, but I believe there are mainly product designers on this board. So it seems globally accepted that the term design is related to this.

But after the discussions here I even see a writer as a designer, or a planner. And yes a photographer also creates ‘things’ with an intent. In that case the photograph doesn’t even have to be part of a graphical design.

If I look at things this way, then yeah I can call a lot of people designers…

Has? This whole thread is a drunken arguement.

But if you haven’t noticed, I am a firm believer in contention. I want to see and hear other perspectives. I expect that from other designers. Getting a harumph from a yes man is worthless. You’ll turn into this,

I agree with nxakt:

Design is intent.
Composing a scene in a viewfinder with the intent to have a resulting 2D image, is design.

So, sometimes photography is not design, and sometimes it is. Sometimes I design my photographs, and sometimes I don’t. Sometimes it takes me a second, and sometimes it takes me an hour. Just like graphic design. Just like industrial design. I would call this photo of mine a design, and I fully intended it to be a design when I composed it and captured it.
Untitled-1.jpg