One of the essential delights of photography is the freedom to create and creation lies at the very heart of the definition of art. In fact it was Aristotle who pointed out that art is the act of making something rather than just knowing or observing something, for that is science. Art and science are not opposites, they can co-exist in an endeavour or object and may be considered as the two major elements that go to make up any 'thing' that we as humans produce , be it an idea or an item.
Thus we can say that a photograph has a scientific content and a creative content. Since there is an infinite quantity of both knowledge and creativity in the universe we can assign a relative value of each to a photograph. In other words it can be noted that a particular image has a high art content, in that it is very creative or that the author has expressed a notion in a strong and meaningful way. If he has done so by employing an extensive knowledge of the photographic process then we can say that the picture contains a great deal of science as well. However, given that modern cameras will produce a technically good photo without the user having to think too much it can also be noted that the scientific content is high, but it is simply someone else's science.
Having decided that the creativity introduced into a photo by the author is a mark of its value as an artistic work we must also accept that the chemistry and physics of photography are science for they follow well proven natural rules and if the mechanics of photography are made possible by known rules then does it not follow that any rules followed in the making of an image count as its scientific content rather than its artistry? Hence the rule of thirds is a scientific fact rather than an artistic notion and so on. Indeed, I believe that all the basic principles of composition must be considered science rather than art.
Applying the above arguments to the general melee of images that confront us it soon becomes clear that there is a far greater poverty of art in many photos than we perhaps would wish to admit. Every time I see Competition results (yes, even in AP) I despair at the lack of true art. I see many fine shots that employ the science of photography to great effect, but when I look for the 'art' in them I am usually disappointed. In fact I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that somewhere there is a well thumbed tomb of photographic clichés that must be observed if a shot is to be considered 'good'.
This is nonsense of course, I do appreciate that judges have little time for studying all images as closely as they would perhaps wish, I also understand that they need certain reference points to mark an image against, but I strongly believe that it has gone too far in that if a picture does not immediately fit a template of generally accepted platitudes (must have figure in, must have red , etc. etc.) then it is to be disregarded as proper and noteworthy photography.
So what is the answer? Well I suggest that competition judges and critics loosen up a bit, have a think about what the photographer is saying (if anything). Don't just look to see if the image incorporates all the latest trendy fashion points for this only encourages blandness, but above all remember these words of Oscar Wilde, "to the claims of conformity no man may yield and remain free."
Justin Roberts