I think we have made it clear that photography is an art form. But we must also look at their relative value. For this reason, I can only rely on my experience as a creator.For me, photography began as a hobby.
I started with a love of life, bright eyes, and a wide lens. With that, I combined light and time to create visual works.
Although I started in street photography, I was drawn to the details. Those little moments in a scene that brought everything to life kept grabbing my attention. The more I focused on these little moments, and the more my photography drifted from the representative to the abstract. Soon I had to learn new skills to evoke what I was looking for.
The COVID-19 lockdowns overcharged this process. Stuck inside, I tinkered away at my cameras and was obsessed with the development of images long after they were captured. I fully formulated my #CameraAsBrush method
during this time, and my appreciation for abstract photographic art blossomed.
At no point was my photography driven by the practical matter of documentation (though photography is undoubtedly a good tool for this). Like me, fine-art photographers use their tools and understanding of communicating through images to produce art.
The value of these images lies in that communication. When I wanted to tell a story about real-life experiences on the streets, my work looked one way. But they began to look elsewhere as soon as I tried to say something much more ethereal and mysterious about human life. This appears true for all art forms: they tell a story through one or more senses (sight, hearing, etc.).
Nevertheless, it is still not considered valuable as other forms.