Reaction to John Berger's "Understanding a Photograph"

John Berger, and his article "Understanding a Photograph," appears to want to take photography out of the "fine art" category, and although I agree with him on some of his points, I disagree that it shouldn't be considered "fine art." To begin, what exactly IS "fine art?" Some people believe that a sculpture made entirely of horseshoes is fine art, while others believe it is utter garbage. Some will look at a Cezanne painting and ask, "Why doesn't he just paint the normal way?" while others believe that he created a new art form. The list of subjective arts and art forms is endless--hence why it would be wrong to oust photography completely from the category of "fine art."

Certain photographs shouldn't be considered fine art--photographs of the simple family, or of small children with cake all over their faces, or even of a duck in a pond. Such incidences are just that--incidences that were decided to be recorded in a spur of the moment by the camera-holder, and should be looked upon as nothing more. But a great deal of the time, the photographer will actually be trying to captivate not only memories with his camera lens, but also MEANING.

Let's go back to that example of the duck in the pond--an amateur camera-holder will just point the lens at the duck and shoot, disregarding focus, composition and perspective. Meanwhile, a skilled photographer will take the time to adjust the lens, take into account the focus (will the foreground or background be blurred?), the lighting (should the lake be lighter or darker than it really is?), and the composition (should the duck be offset to the right, left or should it be from a ground-level view?). All these traits that a skilled photographer takes into account is directly correlated to the same mindset of skillful painters, hence why it shouldn't be ousted from the category of "fine art."