the very question of whether photography is or is not an art is essentially a
misleading one. Although photography generates works that can be called art—it
requires subjectivity, it can lie, it gives aesthetic pleasure—photography is
not, to begin with, an art form at all. Like language, it is a medium in which
works of art (among other things) are made. Out of language, one can make
scientific discourse, bureaucratic memoranda, love letters, grocery lists, and
Balzac’s Paris. Out of photography, one can make passport pictures, weather
photographs, pornographic pictures, X-rays, wedding pictures, and Atget’s Paris.
Photography is not an art like, say, painting and poetry. Although the
activities of some photographers conform to the traditional notion of a fine
art, the activity of exceptionally talented individuals producing discrete
objects that have value in themselves, from the beginning photography has also
lent itself to that notion of art which says that art is obsolete. The power of
photography—and its centrality in present aesthetic concerns—is that it confirms
both ideas of art. But the way in which photography renders art obsolete is, in
the long run, stronger.