What makes you an Artist rather than a Photographer

[Turner Reich]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Having either: Too much or not enough.

[Imaginara]

it was not. the clue was in the quotation marks

Ah! No worries. Just wanted to clarify. The internet is not always the most clear form of communication =)

Imaginara,

I think what you are defining is a commercially or socially successful artist.

Where is it written that anyone needs to meet a success test to become artist?

Good point! =) Also, is there really anything wrong with calling yourself an artist if that is what you think you are? In the end, you also are entitled to an opinion about your own work after all, and it is art for you.

Me, i call myself a hack and are constantly amazed that people havent figured out that i can't really photograph. Doesnt stop me from making pictures though :P

[rdenney]

I can call myself an artist, but if no one else considers me one then what i create isn't really art in the public and social sense, just in my very alone little world :P

I wonder how much this really happens. For one thing, I don't think art has a "public and social sense". It is an expression by an artist. If that expression conveys to the artist what he or she intended to convey, then my experience suggests that someone out there will get it. It's hard to imagine that only one person on this planet of billions of people will be moved by a particular expression. If the artist feels that the expression was made and that the expression was worth making, then someone else will probably agree.

There are many artists of all media who imagine their skills much greater than they are. And many probably also overestimate their insight. The former does not represent an artistic issue, but rather a craft issue. The latter only means that the number of people who might agree with the artist is smaller than he or she imagined.

There are also many who make images purely from a technical motivation. "If I put this here and that there, it will be ART". They never even ponder their own insight. These often communicate to nobody, but in fact the artist is also not moved by the work as art. It did not convey an artistic expression, but merely a technical expression. Going back to my musical example, many conductors think that they are making a profound statement if they wiggle their fingers a little more slowly (or quickly, or emphatically, or whatever). They don't consciously think of what the music could express, and then how to bring that expression to life.

Believe me, I'm only too familiar with photographers who far too rarely think about what their photographs should express (other than in purely technical terms). I am one. But if that thought went into the work, somebody will receive it. If that happens, declaring it not art will deprive that someone of a legitimate artistic experience.

Art criticism is difficult, because critics are not there to show how cynical they are and how hard to impress they are, but to open new horizons to people with far fewer artistic experiences.

Rick "his own critic" Denney

[rdenney]

Perhaps it is simply self-definition. If you decide you are working as an artist, you are an artist.

I do think you must take an extra step. After one decides he is an artist, then he must take action to make artistic expressions. So, it is not self-definition, but rather self-determination. When anyone of sufficient technical skill takes actions to make honest expressions (and not just to exercise their technical skill), then I think someone out there will get it.

It may be no more difficult than asking ourselves what it is about a scene that compels us to photograph it, and then making visualization decisions to convey that thing. I don't think we have to put it into words, but I do think we have to feel it. It takes an act of will to ask that question, and some insight into ourselves to answer it. As easy as it is to say it, I sure wish it was easier to do in practice.

Rick "touching it only rarely" Denney

[Robert Hughes]

I'm only too familiar with photographers who far too rarely think about what their photographs should express (other than in purely technical terms).

I like your posts, Rick. As for myself, the thinking about expression is one of the initial driving motivations for a shot. For example, I was driving home yesterday and saw changing weather, with a particular dark cast, over downtown as I was pulling onto a highway entrance - the scene's image pulled me in separate directions of openness and claustrophobia, belonging and isolation. I considered pulling over for a shot, but traffic was heavy so I passed for then. But now the image and its associations are burned into my memory, and I will keep an eye out for that impression in the coming days.

[Mark Sawyer]

I do think you must take an extra step. After one decides he is an artist, then he must take action to make artistic expressions. So, it is not self-definition, but rather self-determination. When anyone of sufficient technical skill takes actions to make honest expressions (and not just to exercise their technical skill), then I think someone out there will get it.

It may be no more difficult than asking ourselves what it is about a scene that compels us to photograph it, and then making visualization decisions to convey that thing. I don't think we have to put it into words, but I do think we have to feel it. It takes an act of will to ask that question, and some insight into ourselves to answer it. As easy as it is to say it, I sure wish it was easier to do in practice.

Rick "touching it only rarely" Denney

I think "touching on it only rarely" is the situation for many of us. An artist's soul and insight into something, and well-expressed at that, is not so easily turned on and off.

And there's a key point in there. I know many people who make art, from professionals teaching at a university to amateurs for the love of it. And many do beautiful, successful work. But I know only a very few who I think of as being truely "Artists".

It's a hard thing to define, but it's something...

Then again, maybe if I switched film developers, I could be an artist too...

[Leonard Metcalf]

Its a state of mind. And if you look carefully you will see it in some photographs, unfortunately it is rather rare, compared to the amount of photographs that are taken every day. And hence the artists need to differentiate themselves from photographers. Technically anyone with a camera is a photographer.

Just my two cents worth.

Len

[Greg Blank]

I agree with the statement previously made that one is born an artist, more importantly their are levels of accomplishment. Merely claiming to be does not insure that one will be considered an artist by others - forever . More likely claiming to be will inspire a measure of disdain from groups of folks.

Personally I believe that if one can draw, paint or construct representational imagery and then manifest unique concepts using that representational creation skill it should define one as a practioner of the arts (artist). Artists, many of them have multiple fields of interest in the art field at large. Some artists are accomplished in multiple
media, so the big picture description is required for breivity, "Artist".

An artist although may have a preference of media in which the artist works. Therefore is further defined as a watercolorist, photographer, sculpter etc. One does not become an artist, one either is or is not. One can only attempt to define ones work as art...not vice versus. Just choosing to draw, to photograph or sing, for that matter having a diploma saying MFA does not qualify anyone.

Except for art galleries, abstraction potentially makes clients uncomfortable.

At what point do you become and Artist rather than a photographer or maybe a fine art photographer rather than a photographer?

I ask because I see so many web sites where people call themselves "Fine Art Photographers" but when I look at the work on show I see largely "landscape photography", "documentary photography" and also what I think is really "photo journalism" or "Photo Essay". Rarely do I see what I would consider art photos with the exception of a smattering of abstracts.

Why don't these photographers call themselves Lanscape Photographers or Documentary Photographers or Photo Journalists or Photo Essayist? Why do they wan't to label themselves Artists? Is it just because everyone else does? Is it because they think calling themselves Artist makes their work more valuable? Is it ego? Or is it just my perception of what an Artist is or does is different from these photographers.

[Mark Barendt]

Why not?

If I draw with the intent of being artistic, what more do I need.

Whether or not anyone else likes it or not makes no difference.

Van Gogh would not qualify as an artist by your definition.

Just choosing to draw, to photograph or sing, for that matter having a diploma saying MFA does not qualify anyone.

[percepts]

Why not?

If I draw with the intent of being artistic, what more do I need.

Whether or not anyone else likes it or not makes no difference.

Van Gogh would not qualify as an artist by your definition.

And what exactly does "being artistic" mean?