By this definition, are you saying that photographers such as William Eggelston, Andreas Gursky, Richard Prince and even some selected works by Ansel Adams do not reproduce fine art photography because their photography is color?Originally Posted by tim atherton
I think it's because in a lot of people's minds, "artist" means "great artist." People say things like "he's such a great bread baker, he's a real artist" ... as if doing something brilliantly makes it art.
This seems odd to me. I happen to think making bread makes a person a bread baker ... making great bread doesn't make someone an artist any more than making great art makes someone a cowboy.
Making art (or trying to do so) makes you an artist. There's no pretense there, because you're not saying you're a great artist. It's a simple statement of vocation, or avocation, like plumber, poetry lover, race car driver, politician, runner, gardener, or hooker.
I've felt the same discomfort saying it too. I'm always a bit concerned that it will be taken the wrong way, as it I'm saying I'm a movie star or a diva. It's too bad, because for me at least, "artist" tells the story better than saying "photographer," or hiding behind my day job.
The terminology seems to be drifting (though it's inconsistent...) the above seem to be described more and more as art photography or just art - or art photographers or artists (or just photography - all the recent Jeff Wall hoopla, it seems to have been described as just plain art or photography in most of the commentary)
colour/b&w doesn't have much to do with it.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Brian, that sounds very sensible - not anything you'd need to apologize for.
I earn a living through a motley mix of activities at the intersection of several very specialized fields (nothing related to photography or art, though). It's basically impossible to explain it even in three or four sentences to anybody who doesn't already know at least some of those fields well. Since there usually isn't time for or interest in a half-hour tutorial, most people who ask me the question end up walking away either not understanding at all, or thinking I do something that fits one of their existing conceptual categories but really isn't what I do at all. One gets used to it.
That's my view. Do something brilliantly, and you are an artist of that thing you do so well. I consider art to be a designation of excellence in an activity, like the art of dancing, the art of war, the art of painting, the art of making music, the art of photography. Art is the result of an excellent action. When the action ceases, so does the art.
If there is something physical left behind, that thing itself isn't art. A thing is just a thing, it is not an action.
When I see a photograph, I relate it to judging a dance by footprints left in the dance floor's dust. The photograph is not art, the art is the creation of the photograph. Perhaps this art is practiced with many players, like a symphony, or maybe just one, like a solo work.
What is left behind is the work of an artist, an artwork. It is the remnant of the art, and it is not the art itself. It is the artist who passes art to other artists, not the artwork. The artwork is lifeless, and devoid of art in itself. The artwork cannot perform the art, it can only receive the artful actions of an artist.
Fine art is the exercise that someone else performed that inspired you to pick up a camera and make photographs.
You guys crack me up, make me think, answer questions, and better yet, force me to ask more. This is a great place to be even if I can't respond to often. These questions and ponderings are the wonders that make this community click. Who cares if we agree or not.
Baxter Black coined the phrase, "self-unemployed."
man that guy's funny - I'm going to use that next time someone asks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks