"Mechanism and Expression" - Lauren Iacobucci

In continuing the debate on whether or not photography is a form of art, Franz Roh seems to decide to elaborate upon the definition of true photography in order to make it more applicable to the art world and argue that, yes, photography is art. We have read several different opinions on why photography is or is not art, but the approach that Roh takes in this excerpt from his book, Mechanism and Expression, is not only rather interesting but also considerably unique compared to those arguments previously expressed. But his approach is quite successful, in my opinion, in achieving its goal of convincing everyone that photography is art.

According to Roh, the fact that everyone can operate a camera due to its simplicity is both a positive and negative aspect for photography. Roh brings up the point “that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy”—which has become remarkably true—but also that not everyone who can work a camera and take a photo is a photographer (156). What Roh is critiquing is the fact that non-professional photographers, i.e. amateurs, seem to be tainting the photography/art field, a field that Roh describes as “misjudged history of general non-professional productivity” (156). Essentially, what Roh is putting forward is that photography is art when it is produced by someone who practices photography not merely as a hobby, but as a profession, such as a painter paints for a living.

Considering photography in this fashion may help many, especially those from Roh’s time period (this book was published in 1929) accept it as a true art form—one which takes much consideration, planning, and imaginative influence, just like drawing, painting, and sculpture.