What makes you an Artist rather than a Photographer

[percepts]

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.

[Ed Richards]

One word - Google.

[percepts]

One word - Google.

Cynical indeed... But also very naive. People buy what interests them. They don't say I want to buy a photograph and look for "fine art photographer" or "artist". They look for what interests them. So typically they would look for "images of location" or "photographs of location" or "painting of location" and not "artist". Using the word artist in your web site won't get you anything unless you happen to come first in google for the word artist and that is not about to happen. You are competing with every other artist in the world for that slot. But narrow it down to what your work is actually of and you have a far better chance of getting found by a seriously interested person.

I think many photographers do themselves a disservice calling themselves fine art photographer when calling themselves documentary photographer or landscape photographer would tell it how it really is.

[John T]

Why can't someone be both? Why should it matter-or bother others?

A person could call themselves human identify themselves with their gender. Does that make a real difference?

I'm of Japanese ancestry. If someone came up to me and asked me (which happens often enough), what are you?

I can reply: a human, an American, a Coloradoan, a Japanese American, a teacher, a photographer, an artist, etc.

It doesn't change anything about who I am. They all are true, it just helps maybe explain part of me and what I do.

[Frank Bagbey]

"I are one."
Actually, we all know an artist when we see one, no matter the trade.
What is amazing are the people who buy a digitial camera and suddenly become
"Wedding Photographer", "Portrait Photographer", "Commercial Photographer", etc.

[percepts]

"I are one."
Actually, we all know an artist when we see one, no matter the trade.
What is amazing are the people who buy a digitial camera and suddenly become
"Wedding Photographer", "Portrait Photographer", "Commercial Photographer", etc.

And also how many people retire and metamorphose into a "fine art photographer" as though it was a lifestyle choice.

[Mark Barendt]

John I think someone can be both.

What I think percepts might be asking though is "Within photography, at what point does someone move past being a reporter and become an artist?"

I think that as soon as someone purposefully arranges or distorts the elements in the scene they are creating art.

When I pose people for a shot I am creating something that would not normally exist in nature, I think that qualifies as art. (Good or bad art is a separate question )

If I sandwich two slides or negs, or I make double, triple or quadruple exposures I'm probably creating art.

Reporting and landscape shooting, in contrast, do not normally change the content. Reporting can use artistic rules like the rule of thirds to create beautiful photos, photos that I might even hang on my wall, but for me they are more a window on my world than art.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

IMO, if you are making photographs for the pupose of creating things that would hang on a wall or maybe fill a portfolio box as opposed to serve some marketing or journalistic purpose, then you are making art. Whether it's good or not, might be another topic, but if the ultimate purpose is as an expression of your emotional response to a subject for people to view and enjoy, it's art. This is not to say that photographs made for the purpose of advertizing or journalism couldn't alternately be considered as art in a different viewing context. I think of a wonderful photograph of a speeding Karmann Ghia that appeared in a VW ad back in the 1960's as a perfect example. It was an ad first, but art after the fact.

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I got my BFA

[percepts]

IMO, if you are making photographs for the pupose of creating things that would hang on a wall or maybe fill a portfolio box as opposed to serve some marketing or journalistic purpose, then you are making art. Whether it's good or not, might be another topic, but if the ultimate purpose is as an expression of your emotional response to a subject for people to view and enjoy, it's art. This is not to say that photographs made for the purpose of advertizing or journalism couldn't alternately be considered as art in a different viewing context. I think of a wonderful photograph of a speeding Karmann Ghia that appeared in a VW ad back in the 1960's as a perfect example. It was an ad first, but art after the fact.

I think most advertising photography is art. More so than landscape photography. It is highly contrived to convey very suggestive ideas. Good art always does that.

But why do we need to call ourselves Artists? Is it because that gives us higher status than a mere photographer?