The Snobbery Around “Original Art” vs. Photography — A Photographer’s Perspective

As a photographer, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard some version of:

“But is it original art?”

or

“Photography isn’t the same as creating something by hand.”

There’s a lingering snobbery in the art world—an old hierarchy that places painting and traditional mediums on a pedestal while treating photography like a shortcut or a lesser craft. And honestly? It’s outdated, inaccurate, and more than a little insulting. Let me explain why.

1. “You Just Press a Button” — The Biggest Myth of All

If only it were that simple. Behind every photograph I create is a chain of decisions:

• choosing the right light

• reading the environment

• composing the frame

• anticipating movement or emotion

• adjusting exposure, timing, and colour

• and finally shaping the image through editing

A camera doesn’t make the art. A photographer does.

People notice the click of the shutter but overlook the hundreds of small creative choices that lead to that moment.

2. My Originality Happens in Real Time

Some people believe a painting is “more original” because it’s built stroke by stroke. But photography requires its own kind of originality—one that happens in fractions of a second. I’m not just capturing what I see.

I’m interpreting it:

• choosing when to capture

• how to tell the story

• what emotion or meaning to pull forward

Originality isn’t defined by whether something is drawn by hand. It’s defined by vision—and photography has vision in abundance.

3. Technology Doesn’t Replace Artistry

It’s funny how photography gets dismissed because it uses modern tools. If technology disqualifies something from being “real art,” then:

• Oil paint once wasn’t art.

• Pigments weren’t art.

• Darkrooms weren’t art.

• Even classical painters used camera obscura projections.

Tools evolve. Art evolves with them. Photography just happens to live on the cutting edge. The idea that technology makes my work “easier” misunderstands the skill, patience, and intention required to use those tools well.

4. Photography Can Move You Just as Deeply

Some of the most powerful moments in visual history came from a camera. A photograph can stop you cold. It can make you angry, hopeful, nostalgic, heartbroken, or breathless. Impact doesn’t care about medium.

I’ve watched people stand silently in front of one of my prints, feeling something they can’t explain. That emotion is real. And it’s art.

5. The Scarcity Argument Is Just Gatekeeping

A common defence of the “original art is superior” belief is that a painting is one-of-one, while photographs can be reproduced. But scarcity is a choice, not a guarantee of value.

I can create limited editions. I can make single prints. I can destroy the negative or the raw file.

What makes something valuable is meaning—not how easily it can be copied.

6. The Future of Art Is Blended, Not Divided

Today’s artists mix mediums freely. Painters use reference photos. Photographers add paint, collage, digital layering. Digital artists borrow from both worlds. As a photographer, I’m part of that evolution. I don’t have to imitate traditional art to be taken seriously.

Photography stands on its own, and it always has.

Final Thoughts: Photography Is Original Art

The belief that photography is somehow “less” than traditional art says more about outdated expectations than about the work itself.

What I create through my lens is intentional, expressive, emotional, skilled—and yes, original art.

Photography deserves its place not beneath traditional mediums, but beside them.

Amanda J Bird (I am made by Dyslexia, expect small typos and big ideas)