At work, I make 360 pictures on 35mm film in one second. At play I make one picture on 8X10 film in 360++ seconds. It's all perception.
At work, I make 360 pictures on 35mm film in one second. At play I make one picture on 8X10 film in 360++ seconds. It's all perception.
I never heard anyone call himself a "creative" (!) but "fine art" is not an affectation, it's a label that some of us have to choose when filling out a survey or grant application (or answering small-talk questions at dinner parties). The choices often include equally vague designations such as "Commercial" or "Photojournalist." I think it's fair to say that a photographer, whether she makes any money at it or not, should call herself "fine art" if the end product is the print for exhibition. The vast majority of "fine art photographers" have to make their living another way. Some bring in money with their "commercial" work, others teach or work entirely outside of photography. The terms you asked about, amateur and professional, don't quite cover all the possibilities. If I tell people I am a professional, they want me to do their wedding; if I say I am an amateur, I would never get another teaching job.
Language does matter.
Cheers, Sandy
The term 'Creative' is used plenty on the digital and graphic arts end. I still disagree with you about anyone calling themselves a Fine Art Photographer. Photojournalists produce fine art, portrait, people, and street scene photographers produce fine art, still life photographers produce fine art. Landscape photographers produce fine art.
These are labels but at least they give an indication of what you do, not what you produce. It's up to someone else to trumpet your product as fine art. What about the individual who calls him or herself a 'Fine Art Photographer' whose work is lousy? Calling yourself a fine art photograhper doesn't make your work great but that's what that label implies, there's no getting around that.
If somebody comes up to me and asks me what I do, I tell them I'm a Photographer, and if the discussion gets involved then I don't mind telling them I'm portrait and people photograhper. Saying you're a fine art photograhper doesn't say anything about what you actually do, but it is a kind of backdoor comment on how great you think your stuff is.
I never heard of anyone calling themselves a fine art photographer until a few years ago, I've heard of fine art exhibitions featuring somebodies work sure, but that label in front of the term photograhper presumes too much.
Nice try, Christopher. I don't think anybody noticed but us! Just a [bad] sign of the times <sigh>.
Alec
I especially like one of Paul Owen's comments about "pro kit." Some people/clients seem to have more confidence in you if you have a nice Nikon F5, Hassy, or some impressive-looking piece of LF gear. However, I can't tell the difference between the shots I've taken with my hand-made Bender and my Calumet.
In response to David Goldfarb, there was also a TV ad for some asset management company showing a guy carrying his 8x10 monorail into the field to take some portraits for his second career. I thought of this forum when I saw it.
I agree with Ellis Vener's comment about talking about/buying gear vs. getting out and shooting. As someone in medicine who doesn't get out to shoot as much as I'd like, I find myself talking more about gear than the photographic process. Call me an amateur.
Love the forum, everyone. --Tony
Jonathan, You're still missing the point. "Fine art" as used as a modifier for "photography" carries no implication of quality or anyone's self- aggrandizement. The way it's used in the "fine art" world of galleries and academia is a matter of intention and function of the image. It means it's not being produced for a client or to sell a product or to illustrate an article, but to be exhibited or sold as a discrete product all its own. There is plenty of bad "fine art" just as there is plenty of great "commercial" work, and vice versa. Of course you're right to say that photojournalism can be fine art... if the photographer chooses to exhibit in a gallery or museum the prints of the images she's originally produced for a periodical, for example. Salgado and Mark are examples of that kind of crossover.
There are many levels of competency within all the worlds of photography whether amature or pro. Some specialize in the techniques or craft of it while others fly higher into the world of real art.No matter how good the technique is... if the person has nothing to say and no deep perception... it wont be art...but it will be a technical demonstation.
All of us who love doing this, want at some time or another at least some of our work to be considered for a Gallery show. We're all fine artists in that sense who are attempting something that exudes craft, craftmanship, artisty, a sense of something well thought out and perfectly executed.
There's no such thing as 'bad' fine art. If it's lousy, it's lousy, it's not fine, and it isn't art. You mention that your images are intended for the Gallery or for exhibition, if they're well executed images done with imagination and perhaps panache, there is a chance they will end up in a gallery, but that goes for everybody.
You make some kind of distinction between your work and other folks work which may be for hire. There's really no distinction, you're for hire the same as they are, only yours may end up in a gallery. Because you want or intend your images to go directly to a gallery doesn't change the fact that the images have to be of something and then we go back to whether it's a people shot, portrait, landscape and so on. My point is that there is no such thing as 'crossover'.
If you weren't for hire, then you'd shoot your stuff and enjoy it for it own sake, admire it, and that would be enough. I stand on what I said, I've missed no point, there's no getting around it, calling yourself a fine art photographer is a backdoor way of say you're great. Everybody wants to be in a Gallery, wanting to be in a Gallery isn't a justification for calling your work fine art, that's for someone else to say.
Galleries are boring....so are museums for that matter...way too much paint by the numbers. I like coffee houses...libraries...events centers where many kinds people gather. Having said that I'm still glad museums and galleries exist...aside from the politics and the commercialism masqueraiding as fine art...occationally something good slips in.
Most people I know who are truly artists don't go around calling themselves "fine artists" or the work they produce "fine art". They have enough sensibility or sensitivity to know that intelligent people can figure that out for themselves and are dismissive of hype foisted upon them by hypesters.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks