A Quote by Peter Lindbergh

Now people ask whether photography is art, but I think the question is of absolutely no interest. — © Peter Lindbergh
Now people ask whether photography is art, but I think the question is of absolutely no interest.
A few words about the question of whether photography is art or not: I never understood the question.
At one point cinema and photography weren't treated as art. Now it's crazy to think they're not. The key question is "What is art today?" The most important artists of the last 20 years are Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive, because the influence they have had is incredible and they've changed the world. That is art.
I think the Congress is elected by people, it represents the people, and works for their interest. The first question that they should ask themselves : what do wars give America, since Vietnam till now ? Nothing. No political gain, no economic gain, no good reputation.
The wrong question to ask of a myth is whether it is true or false. The right question is whether it is living or dead, whether it still speaks to our condition.
My interest in well-being evolved from my interest in decision making - from raising the question of whether people know what they will want in the future and whether the things that people want for themselves will make them happy.
I assumed from the outset that photography was already art, and that I and other people working in photography were artists. I understand now that this was a minority point of view.
The discussion about whether photography is or isn't art is dated and of no interest. Your work makes you an artist, not your title.
Black-and-white photography, which I was doing in the very early days, was essentially called art photography and usually consisted of landscapes by people like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. But photographs by people like Adams didn't interest me.
I do not think there is any question of photography being an art form!
Some people's photography is an art. Not mine. Art is a dirty word in photography. All this fine art crap is killing it already.
Has it led you to the conclusion that photography is an art ? Or it is simply a means of recording ? "I'm glad you asked that. I've been wanting to say this for years. Is cooking an art ? Is talking an art ? Is even painting an art ? It is artfulness that makes art, not the medium itself. Of course photography is an art - when it is in the hands of artists."
The question is not whether you have a right to render people miserable, but whether it is not in your best interest to make them happy.
I collect art on a very modest scale. Most of what I have is photography because I just love it and it makes me happy and it looks good in my home. I also have a pretty big collection of art books mainly, again, on photography. A lot of photography monographs, which is great because with photography, the art itself can be reproduced quite well in book form.
The thing with my workshops is, photography is a thoughtful process. In an atmosphere of fast photography, and generally thoughtless, quick, automatic photography, I think that there is an interest in the slowed down, thoughtful approach.
And one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.
... photography is just a medium. It's like a typewriter. Photography as an art doesn't interest me an awful lot; as a participant, though I like to look at it.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!