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.

[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.

[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 :D )

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 :D

[Michael Alpert]

Artists who use paint are called Painters. Artists who sculpt with stone or other materials are called Sculptors. Writers who compose poems are called Poets. Writers who create novels are called Novelists. Musicians who use pianos are called Pianists. Artists who act on a stage or in film are called Actors. Artists who use photographic materials are called ________. Becoming an artist involves the same arduous cognitive path in all of these fields, with differences involving the specific use of differing materials. You are not going to find the answer to your question--"What is an artist?"--on the Internet.

[jb7]

Artists?

[Jim Noel]

I don't think anyone has the right to name themself an artist - this is done by others. Graduating from art school or getting a BFA or MFA does not make one an artist just as getting an EdD does not make one a teacher.

[Steven Barall]

If money is a exchanging hands I guess it matters but if you agree that what you do has no intrinsic value (Art) then it doesn't matter.

[reellis67]

It's all about marketing...

[percepts]

If money is a exchanging hands I guess it matters but if you agree that what you do has no intrinsic value (Art) then it doesn't matter.
Just because you call your work art doesn't assign any value to it whatsoever. That is for the viewer to decide.

[joseph therrien]

Pro or amatuer are two further distinctions to complicate matters, but to me, the artist is the person who determines or defines the parameters of the project, and is instrumental in the execution. I am sure there are artists who for money, let someone else do the creative part of the assignment and just work as a skilled technician. Some of todays top photographers, Greg Crewdson comes to mind, function more like Directors.

[percepts]

It's all about marketing...

So I should be suspicious of the motives of anyone calling themselves artist. I am anyway but a quick look at their work tells me what they are about. And often it tells me they are not fine art photographers but landscape photographers or some other genre of photographer.

[Robert Hughes]

No it's not marketing - that's just the commercial aspect. It's attitude. How do you see yourself? Are you interested in taking pictures? Or are you interested in expressing a worldview through "deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions"?

You can be both.

[percepts]

I don't think anyone has the right to name themself an artist - this is done by others. Graduating from art school or getting a BFA or MFA does not make one an artist just as getting an EdD does not make one a teacher.

I agree. Those things give you a grounding in the subject.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[percepts]

Artists who use paint are called Painters. Artists who sculpt with stone or other materials are called Sculptors. Writers who compose poems are called Poets. Writers who create novels are called Novelists. Musicians who use pianos are called Pianists. Artists who act on a stage or in film are called Actors. Artists who use photographic materials are called ________. Becoming an artist involves the same arduous cognitive path in all of these fields, with differences involving the specific use of differing materials. You are not going to find the answer to your question--"What is an artist?"--on the Internet.

I think you got the point. We are photographers and should not be ashamed to call ourselves such as though it were an inferior practice.

[percepts]

You're born and artist...... some will never be able to paint more then a house with a brush, and another a masterpiece. Same with photography, the tools are different, but the talent is either there or not.

I agree to a point but the talent has to be developed to flourish.

[rdenney]

C. S. Lewis defined art (he was talking about literature) on the basis of how it is received by the reader. If it is received as art, then it is art, no matter to whose taste it may or may not appeal.

In another thread, someone else expanded this concept (for me, at least) by suggesting that when people argue about the value of a work of art, they are absolutely accepting it as art and arguing whether it is good or bad art. Much plain documentary photography never gets the discussion. When I make a picture of a piece of equipment for inclusion in an engineering report, I may demonstrate considerable technique. But nobody who looks at it cares about it as art. Part of the reason for that is that they see it in an engineering report. If they saw it hung in a gallery, they might have one of these three reactions:

1. Yuck!

2. Wow! Neat!

3. The weld on that sign housing looks porous to me.

The third questions whether it is art, but the first two do not. In an engineering report, reactions like the third are predisposed. In a gallery, not so much.

An important point is that we may receive our own product as art, and in that case it is art, for us. Thus, I can't agree with those who say they can't declare themselves as artists. I play the tuba and consider myself a musician. I have no qualms about describing myself as a musician, even though I'm painfully aware of my limitations as such. "Musician" is, to musicians, a term of art, whereas "tuba player" is a term of craft. "A musician who plays tuba" means the same thing to musicians as "an artist who makes photographs" or "an artist who paints". Even though my own tuba playing reaches my ears as art only rarely, I still describe myself in artistic terms without feeling guilty.

It is tempting to disparage what we don't like by declaring that it is not art. That was the mistake Lewis was trying to correct--critics who reported their own (faddish) tastes rather than understanding whether a work may be received as art by someone--someone they just offended or perhaps pushed away from enjoying something that might move them.

Even bad painters feel no guilt about calling themselves artists, and few people think them pretentious for doing so. When we set up different standards for photographers as artists, we actually undermine photography as art.

Rick "a musician and artist of limited skill" Denney

[Doug Howk]

I pursue the craft of photography. If the print is well-done and rises to the level of art, then I'm doubly happy. Can I then call my self a fine art photographer after achieving both? Yes, but it was not achieved by merely pursuing art (and I don't think manipulation is the key, otherwise every snapshooter with Corel Painter would be an artist).

[willwilson]

Does anybody besides me feel weird telling people they are a fine art photographer? I just can't do it. Artist is even hard for me. I hate labels! I would rather being make art.

[QT Luong]

For me the main reason to call one's images "fine art prints" is so that people understand they are not mass produced like "posters". Now if you make "fine art prints", doesn't that make you a artist ? To me the issue is more that some definitions or art are too narrow. Not all artists are equal.

[jnantz]

It's all about marketing...


yup ...

[Mark Barendt]

Seriously, why can't being an artist, be that democratic? :confused:


(and I don't think manipulation is the key, otherwise every snapshooter with Corel Painter would be an artist).

[Donald Miller]

The ability to recognize and depict that which is not normally, commonly, or easily recognized by other observers. The ability to create that which is not recognized as previously existing in objective reality. The ability to recognize and depict the potential or heretofore unknown as different from that which is recognized as already existing. In other words creating newness as different from simply recording the commonly previously present. This act of creating is not simply depicting beauty...even though that can be a part of the creative process. This creative process can also include showing that which would normally be recognized as ugliness. In addition this act of creating can be about alluding to or touching upon any of the assorted and sundry human emotions...

Sofar as the assignment of titles, I often think that the photographic "artist" is the least qualified to make that determination.

Donald Miller

[Bruce Watson]

For me the main reason to call one's images "fine art prints" is so that people understand they are not mass produced like "posters". Now if you make "fine art prints", doesn't that make you a artist ? To me the issue is more that some definitions or art are too narrow. Not all artists are equal.

+1

[shadow images]

Am I an artist? Only because I have a visceral need to create. Be it a painting, sculpture,car,photograph or by other means. I believe that a true artist is someone that need to create for reasons beyond monetary concerns. Not that it is not nice to see someone buy your art but I will do it for me either way.

[h2oman]

For starters, it seems that you (percepts) have some kind of beef with landscape photography!:D What's up with that? :cool:

I decided to go to Webster's definition of art. Here's the one I took to be most relevant to photography:

"The conscious use of skill, taste, and creative imagination in the production of aesthetic objects."

Of course there could be a serious lack of congruence between the producer and the "consumer" in what is skillful, tasteful, creative or aesthetic!:) Not a problem if we can all agree to disagree.

For whatever it is worth, I consider myself a photographer who is attempting to become an artist.

[percepts]

For starters, it seems that you (percepts) have some kind of beef with landscape photography!:D What's up with that? :cool:


I have no beef with landscape photography, it's what I do most of. I just don't consider it Art for the most part.

[percepts]

For me art has to chronicle or challenge culture. If it fails that test then it is not art. It is more likely craft. A landscape print does not chronicle culture unless it is created with the intent of showing something in the landscape which has been affected by culture or which affects culture, but then its really about what's in the landscape and not the landscape itself. There is a difference. So a pretty view of a sunset or waterfall is not art except in so far that the image was created by a photographer and as such chronicles the act of making the photograph but not the subject.

A documentary photograph of the damage Katrina caused is a chronicle of the effect on culture and as such is art. But it needs to be labled as Documentary Photography for it to have serious intent. Describing it as "Fine Art" really takes away from the seriousness of what documentary photography is supposed to be. "Fine Art" is art for the sake of art if I'm not mistaken. It is Art made purely for the purpose of making a thing of beauty. Perhaps frivolous Art but for me that is really craft and not Art.
As such I see many paintings as craft because they fail to make the transition to being Art by representing or having anything to say about culture.

That's just my opnion. YMMV.

[QT Luong]

Sugimoto's seascapes ?

[percepts]

Sugimoto's seascapes ?

If you remove all of the textual explanations and gallery hype and have none of that to refer to, what do you have? What draws the picture in your mind?

[Merg Ross]

In my infancy as a photographer in the 1950's, I never heard photographers refer to themselves as artists, or to their work as, "fine art photography". They were proud to call themselves simply, photographers. In his writings, Edward Weston expressed his preference to being called a photographer, rather than an artist; of course he was both.

The first time that I became aware of the term, "fine art photography", was in the early 1960's when Ivan Dmitri directed an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York titled,"Photography in the Fine Arts". James Rorimer, the Director of the MMoA stated: "a picture that has a message can be a work of art irrespective of the medium used to produce it, whether it be produced by a painter, a cutter of wood-blocks, an etcher or a photographer".

There have been, and will continue to be, photographers who produce works of art. However,there are photographers who use the term, "fine art photography", and in many cases have bestowed their own work with such an appraisal. It seems presumptuous for a photographer to label his or her work as, "fine art photography". That should be left for others to decide.

[jb7]

If you remove all of the textual explanations and gallery hype and have none of that to refer to, what do you have? What draws the picture in your mind?




Place, light, unity, eternity.
I've seen that show, and it was more moving than most of the thirdy landscapes I see- to me-

Apologies for the textual explanation,
but I'm rather limited here-

Ordinarily, I'd express it through the medium of dance...

[Nathan Potter]

Photography is one of the visual arts, among painting, sculpture, etc. But it is a prisoner of reality more than any other art form. It reproduces a visual image with unrelenting accuracy to the original so has historically been treated rather shabbily I believe. There is a long history of it not being considered fine art.

The slow move to fine art status has been achieved first in a historical context. And central to this move has been the interest in image content that is no longer possible to reproduce. This in my opinion is the result of a unique connection between the old photographer and the old subject - they gradually became interconnected in such a way that the photographic images are appreciated (and collected) just as much as the photographer. This was a first step in elevating photographers to fine art status.

This photographer image connection was focused on by elite gallery owners after WW II where certain photographers were collected as much for their name as for their work. They were touted as true fine artists as long as there was an intimate connection between them and their work along with a uniqueness of style - often the more outrageous the better. Examples like Les Krims, Lisette Model, Diane Arbus, many others.

So when is a photographer a fine artist? IMHO I think this occurs when there is a successful contract in perception and understanding between the photographer, the subject and the viewer. The notion of fine art does not rest with the photographer alone and cannot be separated from the subject or the viewer.

A landscape image, however well done and of extraordinary craftsmanship will not constitute a work of art unless a distinctive style of the photographer is in it and that connection is perceived by the viewer. Then I think the photographer becomes a fine artist.

Of course you can call yourself whatever you like - it's alright - especially since you may find others may call you whatever they like.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[h2oman]

For me art has to chronicle or challenge culture.

That's just my opnion. YMMV.

I guess it just boils down each person's definition of "art".

[percepts]

Place, light, unity, eternity.
I've seen that show, and it was more moving than most of the thirdy landscapes I see- to me-

Apologies for the textual explanation,
but I'm rather limited here-

Ordinarily, I'd express it through the medium of dance...

I'm not saying there shouldn't be textual explanation but if the image fails to convey what it has to say without it, then I'd say it's a pretty weak image. You could call this work fine art but I'd say the photography was illustrative to bolster the text rather than the text bolstering the photography. And that seems to contradict what the writer is saying. It's all very well thinking something but you need to be able to convert that to an image which conveys it without the text otherwise it is illustrative photography.

Post a photo of yourself dancing so we can understand you better...;)

[Greg Lockrey]

The fact that I can paint and draw and my work has been stolen. :D :D :D

[jnantz]

For me art has to chronicle or challenge culture. If it fails that test then it is not art. It is more likely craft. A landscape print does not chronicle culture unless it is created with the intent of showing something in the landscape which has been affected by culture or which affects culture, but then its really about what's in the landscape and not the landscape itself. There is a difference. So a pretty view of a sunset or waterfall is not art except in so far that the image was created by a photographer and as such chronicles the act of making the photograph but not the subject.

A documentary photograph of the damage Katrina caused is a chronicle of the effect on culture and as such is art. But it needs to be labled as Documentary Photography for it to have serious intent. Describing it as "Fine Art" really takes away from the seriousness of what documentary photography is supposed to be. "Fine Art" is art for the sake of art if I'm not mistaken. It is Art made purely for the purpose of making a thing of beauty. Perhaps frivolous Art but for me that is really craft and not Art.
As such I see many paintings as craft because they fail to make the transition to being Art by representing or having anything to say about culture.

That's just my opnion. YMMV.

operating a machine is a craft?

[Greg Lockrey]

operating a machine is a craft?

yes

[ImSoNegative]

I agree that the title "artist" should be what others should call you and not what you should call yourself, I used to teach Oil painting at the community college and when someone would introduce me as the "artist" I would cringe inside, to me the old masters were the real artist and i know im not even close. i would never identify myself as an artist, I like to paint and draw and take pictures with really big cameras. My pastor said one sunday, " Humility is the strangest of all virtues, because once you realize you have it.... It's gone"

[Mark Barendt]

I think that some of the lines being drawn in the sand in this thread are silly.

Why in the world should I care what others say or think about my art or how they label me?

The only reasons I can think of are to sell something or "fit in" and I'm old enough not to care about fitting in or what the latest fad is.

Does commercial viability, being a professional artist, become the definition of "being an artist?" I don't think so.

Does it have to serve a higher purpose? I don't think so.

Does it have to meet a certain quality standard? I don't think so.

Does Grandma Moses Qualify as an artist? Sure, and so do I if I endeavor to create any image that doesn't represent a literal reality, something that would not normally occur in nature.

[jb7]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be textual explanation but if the image fails to convey what it has to say without it, then I'd say it's a pretty weak image

I was intrigued by the idea of these pictures when I saw a small reproduction in a newspaper guide.

I saw the exhibition in the Serpentine Gallery in London,
and went around it without picking up the instructions first.

Apart from the beauty of those large prints,
I was struck by the amount of variety conveyed within the rigour of their compositional rule.
I was particularly struck by one, which was very evocative of the light and texture of the Aegean Sea,
one time when we were becalmed while sailing between Cyprus and Corfu,
and later, when I checked the catalogue, I found that the picture's title was 'Aegean Sea'.

I was already sold, and not on the locations of these numbered prints,
but by reason of the remarks I made earlier.
However, this was a very personal connection made,
and all without having to read about what I should be looking at.

I've heard these pictures dismissed as 'wallpaper',
but a very large part of their power is the print itself;
their dismissal based on reproductions seen on the internet or in a catalogue would seem particularly unfair and prejudicial.

But people do know what they like-

I was fortunate in having been able to see the show,
if I hadn't, I doubt whether I would have been able to bring myself to have an opinion on it at all-
because in the reproductions, there's hardly anything there,
and we're invited to fill in the blanks ourselves, if we can be bothered.

Perhaps that's where text becomes important,
and it would seem that the text is what is memorable for you-

[Frank Petronio]

So I’m shooting this girl, she is sitting on top of me while I’m lying on the bed, aiming the camera up at her face. She’s had a few drinks and her top is off, and she’s glowing and the pictures are coming along nicely when she says to me,

“Photographers are such creeps.”

I was a bit nonplussed but after a moment I reached up and cupped her breast and asked,

“Do you mean like me?”

And she said,

“Oh Nooo – You’re an artist.”


(I'm writing a fictional short story and think that will be the opening.)

[Rick Tardiff]

So I’m shooting this girl, she is sitting on top of me while I’m lying on the bed, aiming the camera up at her face. She’s had a few drinks and her top is off, and she’s glowing and the pictures are coming along nicely when she says to me,

“Photographers are such creeps.”

I was a bit nonplussed but after a moment I reached up and cupped her breast and asked,

“Do you mean like me?”

And she said,

“Oh Nooo – You’re an artist.”


(I'm writing a fictional short story and think that will be the opening.)

Frank you are an artist!

[Steve M Hostetter]

just cause you buy a saw and horses don't make you a skilled carpenter

experiance = skill

I would imagine that if your name was Jesus and lived 2000 years ago and had a board stretcher they might make an exception

[percepts]

So I’m shooting this girl, she is sitting on top of me while I’m lying on the bed, aiming the camera up at her face. She’s had a few drinks and her top is off, and she’s glowing and the pictures are coming along nicely when she says to me,

“Photographers are such creeps.”

I was a bit nonplussed but after a moment I reached up and cupped her breast and asked,

“Do you mean like me?”

And she said,

“Oh Nooo – You’re an artist.”


(I'm writing a fictional short story and think that will be the opening.)

And there was me thinking you were verbalising one of your fantasies...;)

[Mark Barendt]

I do not disagree with you, I think your thought applies to being good at the craft/medium, but I'm not so sure that thought applies to whether or not it's art.


just cause you buy a saw and horses don't make you a skilled carpenter

experiance = skill

[jnantz]

yes


how is that ?
is there craft using a dslr ( or a back that can be put on a lf camera ) ?
or exposing color neg or chrome film, or is it only black and white ?

thanks!

[gbogatko]

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


Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

[Acheron Photography]

Of course you can call yourself whatever you like - it's alright - especially since you may find others may call you whatever they like.

True. But at the end of the day, what makes you an artist is first that you call yourself one. You might not be a good one of course...

[dave wagstaff]

I think if you shoot nudes then it becomes art faster. OK I'll duck now :D

[lecarp]

A Photographer takes photographs.
An Artist makes Photographs.:)

[Nana Sousa Dias]

Can a photojournalist be an Artist?
Can a sports photographer be an Artist?
Can a wild life photographer be one?
And can an architecture photographer?

Can a carpenter be an Artist?
Can a shoemaker be an Artist?
Can an economist be an Artist?
Can a Formula 1 driver be an Artist?
Can a bank robber be an Artist?

When one is extremely good at what he does, we call him an "artist".

I think skill is not enough, a "special" mind is also needed.

However, I think what defines REAL ART is time...

[cjbroadbent]

At what point do you become and Artist rather than a photographer or maybe a fine art photographer rather than a photographer?
.....
Percepts, thanks for sharing your irritation. I'm also irritated by artists who turn to photography as a medium and get away with gross incompetence becase they were artists anyway.

[rdenney]

As such I see many paintings as craft because they fail to make the transition to being Art by representing or having anything to say about culture.

This explains why you don't see landscapes as art, but I think your definition of culture is entirely too narrow. Even landscapes that don't show any effect of man have culture, if for no other reason than they present something that we cultural beings are compelled to react to. And since each person responds to any given presentation uniquely, any time we try to define art only in terms of what moves us we are being rather presumptuous, it seems to me.

Rick "whose culture is closely tied to the landscape" Denney

[rdenney]

I have played music under many conductors. Many were highly skilled at waving the stick, but had nothing musical to offer. Some were profoundly musical, but their stick skills were more limited. The second type is an artist, the first is not, in my thinking. What made them musical was that they had a musical idea and emotion that they wanted to express.

So, to me skill in the medium is not related to art all that closely. Ryder is listed in any history of American art, but his paintings showed terrible technique, including applying quick-drying and brittle paints on top of slow-drying oils, so that the underlying paints bled through in time.

The artist has to demonstrate something beyond craft, and that's a vision of expression. Adams thought the word "vision" was pompous, but he could offer no better.

So, I think it is necessary for an artist to have a vision of expression beyond merely recording what they see, no matter what their medium. But I do not think that vision of expression has to be profound to me for it to be art, and obviously not to any other particular person. I may think the vision trite, or so incomprehensible that it doesn't speak to me, or whatever. But someone else may come along and be reduced to tears by it. Do we deprive them of what for them is an artistic experience just because we think the work derivative or trite or some other insult artists reserve for each other?

Is Thomas Kincade an artist?

Rick "how about Frederick Church?" Denney

[Robert Hughes]

experience=skill
The way I remember it was -

Good judgment comes from experience,
and often experience comes from bad judgment.

[Greg Lockrey]

how is that ?
is there craft using a dslr ( or a back that can be put on a lf camera ) ?
or exposing color neg or chrome film, or is it only black and white ?

thanks!

You said using a machine a craft? ... Well, operating a lathe is a craft for example. It doesn't matter what you use if you use it well it is a craft. Art for example is graded on two fronts, craft (the skill of the workmanship) and art (the originality, concept etc.). As to the answer the above statement, yes on all three.

[jnantz]

You said using a machine a craft? ... Well, operating a lathe is a craft for example. It doesn't matter what you use if you use it well it is a craft. Art for example is graded on two fronts, craft (the skill of the workmanship) and art (the originality, concept etc.). As to the answer the above statement, yes on all three.

thanks for the clarification! :)

john

[Mark Sawyer]

You're born and artist...... some will never be able to paint more then a house with a brush, and another a masterpiece. Same with photography, the tools are different, but the talent is either there or not.


I agree to a point but the talent has to be developed to flourish.

I think that, at least on another level, we're all born artists, and develop out of it. If we could bring to our work what a four-year-old brings to a crayon drawing, we'd be better off. In the best of our work, we sometimes get back to that...

[Mark Barendt]

Well put Rick.


I have played music under many conductors. Many were highly skilled at waving the stick, but had nothing musical to offer. Some were profoundly musical, but their stick skills were more limited. The second type is an artist, the first is not, in my thinking. What made them musical was that they had a musical idea and emotion that they wanted to express.

So, to me skill in the medium is not related to art all that closely. Ryder is listed in any history of American art, but his paintings showed terrible technique, including applying quick-drying and brittle paints on top of slow-drying oils, so that the underlying paints bled through in time.

The artist has to demonstrate something beyond craft, and that's a vision of expression. Adams thought the word "vision" was pompous, but he could offer no better.

So, I think it is necessary for an artist to have a vision of expression beyond merely recording what they see, no matter what their medium. But I do not think that vision of expression has to be profound to me for it to be art, and obviously not to any other particular person. I may think the vision trite, or so incomprehensible that it doesn't speak to me, or whatever. But someone else may come along and be reduced to tears by it. Do we deprive them of what for them is an artistic experience just because we think the work derivative or trite or some other insult artists reserve for each other?

Is Thomas Kincade an artist?

Rick "how about Frederick Church?" Denney

[Nana Sousa Dias]

I have played music under many conductors. Many were highly skilled at waving the stick, but had nothing musical to offer. Some were profoundly musical, but their stick skills were more limited. The second type is an artist, the first is not, in my thinking. What made them musical was that they had a musical idea and emotion that they wanted to express.


Rick "how about Frederick Church?" Denney

This is true for musicians, too. I've heard some jazz musicians with fabulous technique, that can play (improvise) very fast notes on very difficult chord progressions but some of them have not any "speech", they can´t transmit any emotion. Others, who can't play so many notes, sometimes can improvise beautifull melodies on the same difficult chord progressions in a way that turn those progressions in something wich sounds very easy and beautifull. I know a lot of guys from both species...sometimes, I enjoy to listen the first species, especially, if they play the same instrument than me but, the second species, stays forever im my mind.

[oldjess]

I believe that what constitutes a fine artist photographer is the content of the photograph. For instance. If I shoot a car for an ad for a car manufacturer to use as a tool to sell his cars, that is not fine art. But if I shoot that same car and use a sledge hammer on it, pound the metal in, break the glass, slash the tires, shoot it full of bullet holes and then hang the picture on my wall, well now, that's fine art.

[Mark Sawyer]

I believe that what constitutes a fine artist photographer is the content of the photograph. For instance. If I shoot a car for an ad for a car manufacturer to use as a tool to sell his cars, that is not fine art. But if I shoot that same car and use a sledge hammer on it, pound the metal in, break the glass, slash the tires, shoot it full of bullet holes and then hang the picture on my wall, well now, that's fine art.

Until a car manufacturer comes along and says, "you know, we could use a photograph like that to sell a lot of cars. Get me that photographer's number..."

[jb7]

I believe that what constitutes a fine artist photographer is the content of the photograph. For instance. If I shoot a car for an ad for a car manufacturer to use as a tool to sell his cars, that is not fine art. But if I shoot that same car and use a sledge hammer on it, pound the metal in, break the glass, slash the tires, shoot it full of bullet holes and then hang the picture on my wall, well now, that's fine art.

sounds very like an ad for Heineken...

[Imaginara]

Isnt it more in the opinion of your viewers? =)

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

And if i call myself a hack and an amateur, but everyone else considers my work the highest form of artistic expression, then doesnt that make me an artist?

so to conclude, as i see it, wether or not you should call yourself an artist or not is more in how other percieve you, than what you call yourself.

[Nino Grangetto]

I consider artist in photography, when using the conventional elements to take a photography, llamesé camera, manages to break the analogy of the represented object, or a landscape, a face, or a pepper (Weston)
Interesting subject and pardon by the English:)

www.ninograngetto.com.ar

[z_photo]

so if 100 monkeys enroll in a photography workshop and all are taken to an area to photograph landscapes, but only two return with photographs that are described as beautiful by a vast majority of viewers, have the two made art while the other 98 simply did a poor job technically? the premise is that the eye for composition, the intrinsic decisions made in making the exposures, or the monkeys' final interpretations of the images for viewing by others all contain no artistic merit. maybe so. strikes me as an odd "perceptsion" (sic)

one can subscribe to as narrow a definition of art as one chooses. to expect the masses will agree might be interpretted as self important. on the other hand perhaps the monkeys think it much ado about nothing.

[Bob Salomon]

Marketing, PR and sales ability.

[Robert Hughes]

I'm impressed with the general low esteem given artists among people who profess to love the photographic arts. Is there some latent self-hatred leaking through?

[Imaginara]

so if 100 monkeys enroll in a photography workshop and all are taken to an area to photograph landscapes, but only two return with photographs that are described as beautiful by a vast majority of viewers, have the two made art while the other 98 simply did a poor job technically? the premise is that the eye for composition, the intrinsic decisions made in making the exposures, or the monkeys' final interpretations of the images for viewing by others all contain no artistic merit. maybe so. strikes me as an odd "perceptsion" (sic)

one can subscribe to as narrow a definition of art as one chooses. to expect the masses will agree might be interpretted as self important. on the other hand perhaps the monkeys think it much ado about nothing.

If this was a reply to my comment, i did not mention anything about masses only that wether or not you are an artist is for others to decide not you. Anyone can call what they do art and themselves as artists, that means nothing. If everyone else calls you an artist, then maybe there is some truth in that?

[Mark Barendt]

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?

[SAShruby]

I didn't read all of it, maybe it was mentioned before, but i'd like to offer my perception what I consider art. Art is a new creation, never observed by you. For example, mother nature creates apple. It's art because no one is making it. If I take a picture of the apple, I don't consider the picture as art, but if I bite the apple first and then take a picture of the apple with bite in it, it's an art. Quality of the art is another story.

To summarize it in another words, if someone makes something new and you take a picture of it, I believe not an art, is't a copy of it. To become an artist you neet to change it, or make it from schratch, which makes item unique, then it's an art and then you become an artist.

Now, what method you choose, such as taking a photograph of your art or paint it or scuplt it, then you're photographer - artist. Otherwise you're a tourist :D.

p.s. Please do not blow bridges just to make then unique!!!

[z_photo]

If this was a reply to my comment, i did not mention anything about masses only that wether or not you are an artist is for others to decide not you. Anyone can call what they do art and themselves as artists, that means nothing. If everyone else calls you an artist, then maybe there is some truth in that?

it was not. the clue was in the quotation marks

[Mark Sawyer]

Perhaps it is simply self-definition. If you decide you are working as an artist, you are an artist. What the rest of the world decides is in their eyes. In your own eyes, you are an artist.

What matters more than that? By any other measure of "success", Van Gogh was not an artist.

[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?

[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.

[archer]

Being an artist is not self determined but determined by others. Working with artistic intent but without knowldege of craft is usually the path to self delusion, especially if you believe you have succeeded to lofty goal of creating art. You are an artist when others think you are and not what you call yourself. I believe that Alfred Stieglitz said it best, "Your work isn't art until some rich guy buys it." Why is being a photographer, no matter how great, not fulfilling enough? Be creative, do your work to the best of your ability, be passionate about achieving your conceptual vision and then leave the description of your achievement to others to label. The joy is in the creative process and the art is in the eye of the beholder.
Denise Libby

[Rodney Polden]

Being an artist is not self determined but determined by others.

Wouldn't this definition mean, after the Deluge when I find I'm the only person left alive, that no matter how well my photographs about the experience turn out, I can never be an artist, because there's no-one else there to decide that I'm an artist. That seems rather a limiting notion of what art is or might be in the life of the individual.

Art isn't something extra, some kind of sugar-topping, to me art IS life, art is nature, art is movement, art is every thing that means and clarifies and confounds and uplifts and evokes and explains and shatters. I'm not sure that art necessarily even involves an object (a product, a crafted result, a sale, an item...)

To me (as to others before me), photography is a partial repayment for the gift of sight. Art can be there just in the seeing, before intent, before production, before craft. Now what the relationship is exactly between "art" and "artist", well, that's anyone's guess.

[Mark Barendt]

I believe art is truly democratic, everyone has some innate talent for art. Whether that talent is photography or gardening or weaving or music or the spoken word or architecture or protest or something else.

My thought is that inspiration is what separates creating art from doing an assignment.


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

[Mark Barendt]

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.

Most simply lack the opportunity or are simply doing something else.

Grandma Moses didn't start until her seventies, many people don't live that long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Moses

How many people simply never get the chance?

[Mark Barendt]

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

Art can be pretentious. :p

[archer]

Dear Rodney;
In a very general way, everything you say is valid however it is too general to answer the question which started this thread and if what you postulate regarding, after the deluge, who then would give a damn. I believe we must differentiate between the generic term art and the specific use of the word in describing its application to that which the OP referred at the beginning of this thread.
Denise Libby

[Rodney Polden]

......... if what you postulate regarding, after the deluge, who then would give a damn?

Well, I guess at that point it would be 100% of the entire world population's opinion, so maybe that's the point that it would really be relevant, rather than now, with just the few dozen of us here who debate these issues;)

I guess I give a damn about what photography is for, and what art is. It's not because someone else agrees or notices or gives me a certain label, that it BECOMES meaningful.

Maybe I'm just old enough and "liberal" enough to have figured out that it's when it seems "right" to me, rather than "right" to some other people, that it's worth me paying attention to.

Over the course of a couple of hundred years, the popular consensus espoused by the authority figures of society about what is real, what matters, what is actual, more or less does a 180 degree shift. It seems that people very rarely question the authority figures as an institution - they merely regard everybody in olden times as unenlightened and stupid. Ever noticed how, even though quantum is no longer just a theory (like maybe for the past 50 years!), there has been no trickle down into the public consciousness of that single astonishing and world changing perspective. It rocks too many well-funded boats.

What does it take for us to get to realise that there are just as many illogicalities, just as many lies perpetuated by vested interests, in this age as in any previous one. Likely many more, in fact, because we invented advertising (where a big chunk of my working life was spent, mea culpa). We can only approach truth and reality as one individual, along a narrow and winding path that does not allow a crowd together.

So the question of whether you are an artist or a photographer comes directly back to the issue of whether you are living art in your life, or whether you "just" know cameras. I don't see one as right and the other as wrong, anymore than believing you can only fly the Atlantic if you're a pilot. It's just that, for me, the art in life and the life in art is FUN, it's deeper, it's the joy. It's the real bit amongst the wallpaper pattern.

Recognition by others of artistic production is a welcome confirmation (for some of us), but the absence of it may simply mean that one's work is truly original or truly significant (and maybe for those reasons, less saleable). The cognoscenti of art were not lining up to pat Vincent van Gogh on the back when he showed "Starry Night", they probably walked right past him.

In fact, most courageous art is virtually unfindable in the era in which it is created - and goes completely unnoticed EVER, unless one collector, one patron, one gallery owner, one reviewer, one enthusiast, one relative maybe (Vincent's brother, in his case) is so committed to the relevance of what they see in your work that they don't stop pushing the public to look at it. The public eye always requires strenuous effort to turn it slowly onwards, away from a vase of flowers or a clown, and towards a Joel-Peter Witkin, a Goya, a firing squad executing patriots, a b/w photograph of a single tree in a tract housing development.

Remember too that phoTogRAphy always has art in its heart, even when it has to be examined to find it there. Just as well, really, because these days I hear "artist" used as a put down or an indicator of somebody's unreliability, more often than as a term of highest praise. Other countries have poets for presidents - here they're used-car salesmen, spin doctors, lawyers and economists.

[Greg Blank]

Most people do have talents and those talents can be deemed Art.

I think we are agreeing on a lot of issues :)

Its when some people elect to become Artists in areas that clearly they are fish out of water, that I question thier intent. This includes people that are already famous in another area "Like singers", they use that fame to show the world how great they are in this other area-perhaps they felt cheated at not haven been noted at previously. Given the instance they didn't have fame in the area they are famous for no one would pay them any mind.

Editorial Assignment work is hopefully given out because one has a talent that the editor appreciates, having a clear cut method of technique should not mean one can not create or produce art. The Media should always be secondary to a manifestation of concept. But like I said one can be a photographer without being an Artist.




I believe art is truly democratic, everyone has some innate talent for art. Whether that talent is photography or gardening or weaving or music or the spoken word or architecture or protest or something else.

My thought is that inspiration is what separates creating art from doing an assignment.

[Greg Blank]

In the words of Metallica; Advantages are taken, not handed out. :)



Most simply lack the opportunity or are simply doing something else.

Grandma Moses didn't start until her seventies, many people don't live that long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Moses

How many people simply never get the chance?

[sergiojaenlara]

Who wants to be an artist being able to be a photographer?

[rdenney]

Hey, I can draw. I spent several years in architecture school before realizing that I didn't just want to draw, but rather create, and that creation meant more for me than just representation of walls and space. Switching to engineering gave me insight into a design process that started much deeper than aesthetics, but that for me still demands elegance to do it well. But I don't confuse that with art.

I've known a lot of painters. I've never known a single one of them who shied away from calling themselves artists, even if they were modest (some appropriately so) about their abilities. For them, it was not a term of pretense, but a simple statement: I make art. Many of them do explore different media, but I have never known one who said, "Gee, in addition to oil painting, I am now trying charcoal, so now I am a real artist." They experiment with different media because they are still looking for the voice that rings true for them--that is uniquely theirs. I painted and drew from earliest childhood, and one or two of my childhood attempts are still hanging on walls, providing some visual interest that goes beyond (maybe not far beyond) mere decoration. I was never particularly painterly--even my paintings were photographic in their approach. So, as I experimented with media, photography came along and finally resonated with how I wanted to express myself. I'm not really all that good in the grand scheme of things, but like those everyday painters out there who unpretentiously call themselves artists, I will too.

I'll make this point again: When we make all these demands on photography just to be Art, those who feel the joy and try to express it often get rejected by definition. That does two terrible things, in my view: 1.) It invalidates what should be a legitimate artistic experience being felt by real people who don't care about these sorts of discussions, and 2.) it applies a different and more demanding definition of art with respect to photography than what is customarily accepted for painting, drawing, and so on.

Not everyone is born with artistic talent. Most who are not don't care, and spend their time in other pursuits. Some are not and still wish to be, having ideas they cannot express either through lack of skill or inability to understand their own feelings clearly enough to express them. In the music world, people spend their lives attaining mere mediocrity. I spent the weekend at Watermelon Park in Virginia listening to musicians of all abilities (and ages) desperately trying to develop the ability to create the music that touches them to the core. Most never achieve excellence. But are we really so wise that we will reject what they do as music?

Many would like to apply a standard to art, beneath which art is not art but mere scribbling or snapshots. Personally, I think they need to get over themselves. If the photographer felt something deep, and still feels it when looking at it hanging on the wall, someone else is going to get it. When that happens, art has taken place. Maybe it's an accident, but does that really matter? Maybe it will never happen again for that artist, but does that really matter? Maybe the expression is flawed by poor technique, requiring one to dig deeper to see the expression, but does that really matter?

Were the cave artists who made their cave art (and I've never heard it called anything else) trying to express something profound or were they just keeping track of their day?

Rick "thinking art is not well-served by a priesthood" Denney

[Donald Miller]

Quote rdenney: "were they just keeping track of their day?"

When you get the extraneous BS out of the way, what else is there that any of us can really do? When we try to put words to it; to attempt to build it beyond what it really is we are only trying to put legs on a snake.

Donald Miller

[Greg Blank]

The ancient "artists" were conjurors. They summoned magical beasts from nowhere in hopes they could affect the hunt. Those drawings some probably predate words, but the subjects were recognizable-feared , maybe worshipped or both. When one paints in a darkend room your mind becomes rather focused at the same time your other senses tend to drift and pick up on "whatever".

Showing a picture,everyone knows what the subject is if the work is executed well, and then they lose interest and move on.

Going backwards a bit, abstracts can make the viewer somewhat uneasy. Abstracts tend to have less recognizable features equaling fewer associated words. When the viewer finally figures out a thought-word description that works for them, they either hate the work or love it and want to possess it.



Quote rdenney: "were they just keeping track of their day?"

When you get the extraneous BS out of the way, what else is there that any of us can really do? When we try to put words to it; to attempt to build it beyond what it really is we are only trying to put legs on a snake.

Donald Miller

[Donald Miller]

The ancient "artists" were conjurors. They summoned magical beasts from nowhere in hopes they could affect the hunt. Those drawings some probably predate words, but the subjects were recognizable-feared , maybe worshipped or both. When one paints in a darkend room your mind becomes rather focused at the same time your other senses tend to drift and pick up on "whatever".

Showing a picture,everyone knows what the subject is if the work is executed well, and then they lose interest and move on.

Going backwards a bit, abstracts can make the viewer somewhat uneasy. Abstracts tend to have less recognizable features equaling fewer associated words. When the viewer finally figures out a thought-word description that works for them, they either hate the work or love it and want to possess it.

When we try to put words to it; to attempt to build it beyond what it really is we are only trying to put legs on a snake. The point is that there is no need for words any more than a snake needs legs.

Donald Miller

[Greg Blank]

& You are expressing your opinion in written form for that very reason :D


When we try to put words to it; to attempt to build it beyond what it really is we are only trying to put legs on a snake. The point is that there is no need for words any more than a snake needs legs.

Donald Miller

[Chuck Pere]

Can someone name a few well known photographers that they consider artists and explain why they are. That would help me (an admitted "For Dummies" reader) understand the concept.

[Greg Blank]

Here is a short list of photographers who have and do create art IMOP, some maybe intentionally some maybe incidentally.

Carleton Watkins
Alfred Stieglitz
Edward Steichen
Walker Evans
Man Ray
Edward Weston
Minor White
Paul Strand
Imogen Cunningham
Andreas Feininger
Ansel
Jerry Uselmann
Michael A Smith
Irving Penn
Arnold Newman
One of my Teachers "Bob"


You really have to look at the imagery to understand why. I will note an interesting tidbit....a few years back the US postal service ran a series on American Photographers, I bought several complete sheets of the stamps, in every image 20 total I note that the subject and lighting bisects the image area from upper left to lower right. Kind of interesting because its 20 different photographers work and all are verticals.





Can someone name a few well known photographers that they consider artists and explain why they are. That would help me (an admitted "For Dummies" reader) understand the concept.

[percepts]

how about a few more living and practising ones...

[Jim collum]

how about a few more living and practising ones...

just a few that come to mind right now from a *very* large potential list

Robert and Shana ParkeHarrison
http://www.parkeharrison.com/slides-architechsbrother/index.html

Susan Burnstein
http://www.susanburnstine.com/

aaron siskand (deceased)
http://www.aaronsiskind.org/images.html

carl chiarenza
http://homepage.mac.com/chiarenza/Menu2.html

ralph gibson
http://www.ralphgibson.com/

Oliver Gagliani (deceased)
http://www.westongallery.com/gagliani_oliver.htm


some from our forum

kerik kouklis
http://www.kerik.com/images.htm

bill schwab
http://www.billschwab.com/

chris jordon
http://www.chrisjordan.com/

david burdney
http://www.davidburdeny.com/

[rdenney]

Can someone name a few well known photographers that they consider artists and explain why they are. That would help me (an admitted "For Dummies" reader) understand the concept.

Part of the process of developing as a photographer is generating your own list. I would start with some of the anthologies that you'll see in any bookstore. If something sparks a response from you, think for a bit about why it does so. Don't miss any traveling exhibition of photography within reach, even if you have never heard of the photographer. At least half the historical photographers I admire I discovered by one of two methods: 1.) perusing books at Borders, and 2.) being praised in the writings of other photographers in their books. Those become starting points. For example, Ansel Adams praised Paul Strand, and based on that I found and bought the Aperture book on Strand's work as a starting point for his work, and so on.

Much work is posted in this forum, and that sort of critical review is possible here in large measure. It's less of a historical understanding of art photography, and more of a process of developing your own concept of photographic art, but that's how I read your request anyway. In only a few months, I've developed a short list of photographers whose work I really admire, and a much longer list of photographers whose work I think artistic.

I personally think photographers and artists should spend as much time doing this as in making their own art, just as I believe the best writers read and the best musicians listen to music.

Rick "noting the difference between photographers who are artists and photographers I happen to admire" Denney