What makes you an Artist rather than a Photographer

[Greg Blank]

And what exactly does "being artistic" mean?

Hehe, that's a better question than any response I could have given

[Mark Barendt]

I'd say you need to ask the artist in question, in my mind "being artistic" is driven by the artists intent.

And what exactly does "being artistic" mean?

[percepts]

I'd say you need to ask the artist in question, in my mind "being artistic" is driven by the artists intent.

I think I'll stick to asking the person who made the statement what they meant by it.

[Mark Barendt]

Being artistic might mean shooting once, advancing the film in a Holga half a frame and shooting again on purpose. It might simply be zooming the lens while the shutter is open. It might be choosing an abstract medium like B&W to represent a color scene.

None of these artistic choices requires exceptional skill but when done on purpose for effect; they do constitute artistic thought.

That's very different than being good at a craft like developing or printing or knitting that the same person might do per-the-manufacturers-instructions.

Henri Cartier-Bresson was into drawing pictures, the camera was just an easier/faster way for him to draw what he saw than using a pencil. I'm para-phrasing his words.

Was HCB an artist? Was Van Gogh?

Hehe, that's a better question than any response I could have given

[Mark Barendt]

I think I'll stick to asking the person who made the statement what they meant by it.

"being artistic" is defined by the artists intent.

[Greg Blank]

Why not?

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

Original thought and the ability to manifest that thought into a form which is true to that original thought (skill)- otherwise you are frustrated.

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

It does if; you want to prosper. It does not if your sole goal is making.

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

I don' t see your assumption concerning my statement as valid. Maybe you can expound on that premise.

[Greg Blank]

Not to be overly difficult: but intentions only work by being able to folllow through with them.

Some people just lack the skills and some probably lack the drive to manifest original thought into a reality or don't value the ability to do it.

It would be more interesting to know how many Artists, truly can manifest the exact concept they "intended to produce" when the concept is not a tangible copy (in some way) of something already in existence.

Since I draw, I'll share a little insight. A few years back I started a drawing series that involved letting my subconcious determine the overall plot of the drawing which is 26x32. Instead of putting a base drawing down I assembled a scene using multiple elements, like circles and shading within small identifible objects which were joined together to make a complete scene. I added each element to create a vast panorama of subjects which combined make a somewhat surreal total picture. I drew this image over six months in pencil. I only drew when the mood for drawing was relaxed....I did not intend any part of the drawing, thoughts came to me and I penciled them into the scene. Because I could draw I was able to make the image, because I took the time I made the image. I could have intended it forever, does not means that it would happen.

"being artistic" is defined by the artists intent.

[Greg Blank]

I alway like when people try to separate art from "craft".

It's all about original thought, and being able to manifest it. Some can do it, some can not. Some can do it well and some can not.

Choosing what film true is a decision, which subcategorizes Artist/Photographer/That likes brand x film. Or it just means you made a decision based on someone elses biases Or something you read, and using "it" might make your work "seem special".

I think being an Artist is considerablely independent of media choices, but being able to produce original work does not mean that if you choose one media preference over another like photography you are less talented. It merely means that you choose to be defined by the word Photographer or Painter. You either like the mantle of the description or you do not.

Certain things HCB and Van Gogh made defined their "Art". They had original thought, so they ended up with unique manifestations of that thought, that others acknowledge. Since you asked, I would state both were artists even without saying HCB knew how to draw and decided to be lazy at drawing.

One can be a Photographer without being an Artist, just like one can paint without being an Artist. To be an Artist-Photographer one needs to successfully manifest original concepts, this is my opinion and I stand by it

That's very different than being good at a craft like developing or printing or knitting that the same person might do per-the-manufacturers-instructions.

Henri Cartier-Bresson was into drawing pictures, the camera was just an easier/faster way for him to draw what he saw than using a pencil. I'm para-phrasing his words.

Was HCB an artist? Was Van Gogh?

[Mark Sawyer]

And what exactly does "being artistic" mean?

The only thing more pretentious than the question is the answer...

[percepts]

The only thing more pretentious than the question is the answer...

The problem with the word pretentious is that by using it, you become guilty of what you are accusing someone else of.