DougFord
on the good foot
How do you get an artist off your porch?
You pay him for the pizza 😀
You pay him for the pizza 😀
Are you an artist? (continued)
- Thread starter lawrence
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 61
- Views 7K
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
I remembered overnight - I have actually called myself an artist a few times. Some of the times I've had to deal with the "Why are you taking pictures?" question on the street "I am an artist" has seemed the best response. It's always worked when I've used it!
Tom
Tom
momus1
Established
Anyone who claims they are, isn't. The work speaks for itself. Never believe anything an artist says, only what they produce.
Last edited:
backwater
Newbie
art or Art?
art or Art?
Everyone who encounters or thinks about art will ultimately espouse a philosophy of it. I think this discussion is important. We live in an era wherein museums have become amusement parks. Directors seeking firm financial footing (and hence job security) and curators who know more about art history than art find or create some theme (real or imaginary) that they can market. In order to tone down the flagrant commercialism, all of this is justified under the guise of educating the public.
And perhaps there is value in this, from the cultural point of view and for instilling a value of aesthetics. But, are these people experiencing art? My own view about art sounds pompous to my own ears, but this never keeps me from trotting it out:
That which most people view as art, even many masterpieces, is actually craft – or perhaps we can call them “fine craft”. These brilliantly crafted works may serve many functions in our culture but mostly the function is decorative, aesthetic, or revelatory of some aspect of society or reality.
But art is more than craft, and can’t really be intended by the craftsperson. Art is transcendent of time. It throws us back on ourselves. It makes us acutely self-conscious. It removes us from our dimensionality. This is true regardless of the art form.
This is not to say that the craft is not important to the art; developing our photographic skills and broadening and deepening our ability to see can ultimately be visited by such truth, either for us or for others to encounter through our work.
That’s my penny’s worth.
art or Art?
Everyone who encounters or thinks about art will ultimately espouse a philosophy of it. I think this discussion is important. We live in an era wherein museums have become amusement parks. Directors seeking firm financial footing (and hence job security) and curators who know more about art history than art find or create some theme (real or imaginary) that they can market. In order to tone down the flagrant commercialism, all of this is justified under the guise of educating the public.
And perhaps there is value in this, from the cultural point of view and for instilling a value of aesthetics. But, are these people experiencing art? My own view about art sounds pompous to my own ears, but this never keeps me from trotting it out:
That which most people view as art, even many masterpieces, is actually craft – or perhaps we can call them “fine craft”. These brilliantly crafted works may serve many functions in our culture but mostly the function is decorative, aesthetic, or revelatory of some aspect of society or reality.
But art is more than craft, and can’t really be intended by the craftsperson. Art is transcendent of time. It throws us back on ourselves. It makes us acutely self-conscious. It removes us from our dimensionality. This is true regardless of the art form.
This is not to say that the craft is not important to the art; developing our photographic skills and broadening and deepening our ability to see can ultimately be visited by such truth, either for us or for others to encounter through our work.
That’s my penny’s worth.
KM-25
Well-known
Yes, but I serve the greater artist of life it self.
A
Ahmed Poltroon
Guest
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
I just don't know anymore, but when I find out, I will be sure to let everyone know.
:s:
:s:
fondueman
Member
for my first post i found this question most compelling. my thought is this, that if you do not know you are an artist then you are very possibly not one. this means you are likely the most unqualified to make comment on those who know they are. it is an inherent knowledge that artists share that is self-defining. however not knowing one is an artist doesn't mean that one's work is not good and worthy of artistic merit.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i am not a fireman.
A
Ahmed Poltroon
Guest
I am not only an artist, but the best artist in the entire world. I laugh at all those minor "artists" who crawl around way beneath me.
gb hill
Veteran
Once, after drinking many beers, I stood up & pulled out a fire hose & helped put out a camp fire. Doesn't that make me a fireman? I thought carying a camera also made me an artist!.....darn!😉😀
A
Ahmed Poltroon
Guest
Remember that guy in Soho who used to write "I am the best artist" on all the walls?
historicist
Well-known
This is a very flawed standard for defining an artist. For example, I can't fly a plane or heal sick people, but I am still perfectly qualified to understand what a pilot or a doctor is.
Even if we were to accept that an artist is a special category, fundamentally different to categories such as 'doctor' and 'pilot', and thus is defined in the way you suggest, then your argument that one can unconsciously create work with artistic merit makes it a merely sophistic definition - for the end product is the same (work of artistic merit).
But for sure aesthetic judgements are much harder to pin down that other kinds of knowledge, which is the main reason why it's really not very easy, probably impossible to define things like 'art' and 'artist'.
At the risk of being patronising, I would recommend that anyone who is interested in this question would have a look at the last chapter of Ernst Cassirer, "The Philosophy of the Enlightenment", which addresses the development of modern aesthetic thought during the 18th century - its surprising how much contemporary questions regarding the nature of art are dependent on this.
fondueman
Member
cassirer was a philosopher, not an artist, an analyst, not a feeler...as much as jung was a decider and not a fixer. being an artist is not about being in a special category, my seemingly well-read opponent, it is all in the one word you did not address in my text...inherent. it is an inherent knowledge that one is a maker and not an observer. although artists are keen observers, probably the keenest of skills in the craft. and likely also, artists are the most apporopriate philosophers of their talent.
but forever since and henceforth the notion of "what is art" will be asked by those who do not know and those who do will smile that they are in that place of knowledge which can not be analysed by a mere voyeur of achievers, as was herr cassirer. artists do not need to be defined nor told what they are. and as for any misguided track record of proof ( i sell therefore i am...) history is full of anecdotes of late discoveries and complete "collection of the artist" attics.
i have worked in this arena for over fifty years and i have never met an artist who waits for your last comment...its surprising how much contemporary questions regarding the nature of art are dependent on this.
but the fun part of all this is, it doesn't really matter and has no bearing on whether art is created or not. there will always be artists and there will always be a critical audience.
but forever since and henceforth the notion of "what is art" will be asked by those who do not know and those who do will smile that they are in that place of knowledge which can not be analysed by a mere voyeur of achievers, as was herr cassirer. artists do not need to be defined nor told what they are. and as for any misguided track record of proof ( i sell therefore i am...) history is full of anecdotes of late discoveries and complete "collection of the artist" attics.
i have worked in this arena for over fifty years and i have never met an artist who waits for your last comment...its surprising how much contemporary questions regarding the nature of art are dependent on this.
but the fun part of all this is, it doesn't really matter and has no bearing on whether art is created or not. there will always be artists and there will always be a critical audience.
Last edited:
historicist
Well-known
I sort of agree with you - I'm not trying to argue that there is some philosopher out there who actually has a definition of what an artist is, nor that artists should feel themselves bound by what art historians, philosophers, critics or the market, least of all me, etc. have to say about them. Nor does it surprise me that contemporary artists don't think very much about late 18th century philosophy or the many dead Germans who wrote about it.
But this doesn't mean that artists somehow have a monopoly on understanding what an artist is and are the best philosophers of art - if art can only really be understood by artists, what does that make the audience? are they then all artists too, or can they only relate to it in another way?. Or then how do we understand works of artistic value produced by 'non artists' - for example when people find beauty in a scientific illustration or a documentary photograph?
All I was suggesting is that instead of uncritically accepting a cult of genius idea of what it is to be an artist, understanding it as some kind of inherent capacity which can't be explained but only intuitively known, thinking about why and how these ideas (most of which are very old) emerged in connection with social changes during the course of history can be very interesting and provide another perspective on the problem.
It won't help to give a definition of what an artist is, nor is it of any relevance to the actual practice of being an artist or creating artistic works (for which I think your definition is probably correct inasmuch as it reflects the actual experience of being an artist), so in that sense it doesn't really matter but for the purposes of critically examining the ideas we hold about art it is certainly useful.
I recommended Cassirer not because I think he has the answers to these questions, but because he writes clearly and deals with the whole period in one fairly short chapter, whereas most work from philosophy/art history is aimed at small chunks of it. He doesn't address the question of what an artist is or talk about the creation of art, it's mostly about how the way art was understood changed during the 18th century in accordance with social changes and created the basic elements of how we think about it today.
But for sure it won't help anyone paint better or take better pictures 😉
But this doesn't mean that artists somehow have a monopoly on understanding what an artist is and are the best philosophers of art - if art can only really be understood by artists, what does that make the audience? are they then all artists too, or can they only relate to it in another way?. Or then how do we understand works of artistic value produced by 'non artists' - for example when people find beauty in a scientific illustration or a documentary photograph?
All I was suggesting is that instead of uncritically accepting a cult of genius idea of what it is to be an artist, understanding it as some kind of inherent capacity which can't be explained but only intuitively known, thinking about why and how these ideas (most of which are very old) emerged in connection with social changes during the course of history can be very interesting and provide another perspective on the problem.
It won't help to give a definition of what an artist is, nor is it of any relevance to the actual practice of being an artist or creating artistic works (for which I think your definition is probably correct inasmuch as it reflects the actual experience of being an artist), so in that sense it doesn't really matter but for the purposes of critically examining the ideas we hold about art it is certainly useful.
I recommended Cassirer not because I think he has the answers to these questions, but because he writes clearly and deals with the whole period in one fairly short chapter, whereas most work from philosophy/art history is aimed at small chunks of it. He doesn't address the question of what an artist is or talk about the creation of art, it's mostly about how the way art was understood changed during the 18th century in accordance with social changes and created the basic elements of how we think about it today.
But for sure it won't help anyone paint better or take better pictures 😉
Last edited:
Richard G
Veteran
Cartier-Bresson eschewed the notion of the photographer as artist, or at least claimed to. I never understood that. I agree with Fondueman who has put his case so beautifully. The artist is a doer and plays with and masters his (read his/her) materials and knows his serious intent. Repetition, experimentation, respect for antecedents and worthy contemporaries and some affirmation, especially by his senior contemporaries, older or better, are all important in the growth of the artist. The choice of camera, format and film and exposure and the taking of the image, printing and cropping all qualify as art, as much as painting or poetry. These forums are wonderful as an international camera club of aspiring artists, some. Two anecdotes. The poet Seamus Heaney in a recent book of interviews mentions how much it meant to him, the out-of-earshot recommendation of his early poetry by Ted Hughes to a friend at the same party. Picasso once visited Matisse and was so stunned by a work of his he asked to borrow it and kept it a few weeks and had to be asked for it back. An artist might only care for an audience of one, himself, or just two, joined by such significant onlookers.
vbarniev
Established
I just take a picture. Let others decide.
fondueman
Member
But this doesn't mean that artists somehow have a monopoly on understanding what an artist is and are the best philosophers of art - if art can only really be understood by artists, what does that make the audience?
well put, historicist. homework for everyone who is interested should read as many "artist's statements" as possible to understand your correctness. the first half of this exerpt is slightly to the left of how i see my world although not altogether untrue...but the second half is spot on and well observed. artists require an audience that has the "art gene" equally and i would venture to say that of the collectors i know most have it to the degree that they are discerning enough to make decisions based on other than taste. it is again the notion of an inherent understanding of what that art is and more to the point, ~why~.
and richard G i am glad you have noted the application of skill as opposed to the mere knowledge of skill. there are collectors of ideas...philosophers... and there are collectors of skills...punters and academics and not necessarily makers. the artist applies the undersanding of the entire recipe of understanding and skill base...although skill is not a requirement for creating art. i think a lot of people don't understand this.
those without the full 'art gene" but have perhaps inherited a portion of it are able to better analyse and philosophise about the work and determine after the fact why an artwork is "good" or successful or even "art." but the messenger inside the work is really only speaking totally to the artist...and this could include the audience. as for shooting and letting others decide, well, they do anyway. but this does not preclude or exclude the notion that taking pictures is not still making art and when that "gene" surfaces it has such a profound influence on how the shooter sees his/her world.
for me, diane arbus saw the world most honestly and truly suffered her art to create it. and in her history more people tried to analyse than to philosophise her thinking and vision.
this is a good thread. is the rest of the forum like this? i should look deeper. i started with 10x8 and an RF camera in my first days, then moved on to 5x4 and TLR then SLR then a moment of digital (still a bit) then back to film RF. film has an honest human essence which digital does not, for me...
cheers to all who delve deeper than the surface of acceptance and into critical thought. 52 years into this and i've just about got a handle on it.
well put, historicist. homework for everyone who is interested should read as many "artist's statements" as possible to understand your correctness. the first half of this exerpt is slightly to the left of how i see my world although not altogether untrue...but the second half is spot on and well observed. artists require an audience that has the "art gene" equally and i would venture to say that of the collectors i know most have it to the degree that they are discerning enough to make decisions based on other than taste. it is again the notion of an inherent understanding of what that art is and more to the point, ~why~.
and richard G i am glad you have noted the application of skill as opposed to the mere knowledge of skill. there are collectors of ideas...philosophers... and there are collectors of skills...punters and academics and not necessarily makers. the artist applies the undersanding of the entire recipe of understanding and skill base...although skill is not a requirement for creating art. i think a lot of people don't understand this.
those without the full 'art gene" but have perhaps inherited a portion of it are able to better analyse and philosophise about the work and determine after the fact why an artwork is "good" or successful or even "art." but the messenger inside the work is really only speaking totally to the artist...and this could include the audience. as for shooting and letting others decide, well, they do anyway. but this does not preclude or exclude the notion that taking pictures is not still making art and when that "gene" surfaces it has such a profound influence on how the shooter sees his/her world.
for me, diane arbus saw the world most honestly and truly suffered her art to create it. and in her history more people tried to analyse than to philosophise her thinking and vision.
this is a good thread. is the rest of the forum like this? i should look deeper. i started with 10x8 and an RF camera in my first days, then moved on to 5x4 and TLR then SLR then a moment of digital (still a bit) then back to film RF. film has an honest human essence which digital does not, for me...
cheers to all who delve deeper than the surface of acceptance and into critical thought. 52 years into this and i've just about got a handle on it.
Sparrow
Veteran
"I believe that if it were left to artists to choose their own labels, most would choose none."
Ben Shahn
Ben Shahn
fondueman
Member
Not sure what all the fuss is about -- is there a point to this quest for definition?
i think sparrow and nikonwebmaster are both right, most artists do know they are artists but as for a label it is a non-defining "occupation" as well as mindset. we have a secret handshake, you know...
as for the quest fordefinitionit has little to do with whether one is or isn't, in one's own or anyone else's eyes, an artist.art just happens for some, given the right conditions. probably like mushrooms.but many find the quest for the intangible quite stimulating and is for many, a mission. i'm happy with my place and not so much concerned with what i am called as much as i am interested in debating the label with those who like the idea of taking it one more step. however, sparrow, when asked what my occupation is in some instances, i will say "artist," which is what i am. but on my recent application for my social security benefits (before the coffers run out) i put "photographer" because when i said to the SS lady over the phone, "artist," she said, wha...? so in this instance and for the sake of expediancy and ticking boxes i negated the whole argument...photographer as opposed to artist. being an artist is still for many who aren't, a hobbyist and not working at a real profession.
perhaps that is the next thread...is an artist a profession...?
...and sorry, "just about got a handle on it" was a throwaway line, NWM. i've always got one hand on it and both eyes open...
i think sparrow and nikonwebmaster are both right, most artists do know they are artists but as for a label it is a non-defining "occupation" as well as mindset. we have a secret handshake, you know...
as for the quest fordefinitionit has little to do with whether one is or isn't, in one's own or anyone else's eyes, an artist.art just happens for some, given the right conditions. probably like mushrooms.but many find the quest for the intangible quite stimulating and is for many, a mission. i'm happy with my place and not so much concerned with what i am called as much as i am interested in debating the label with those who like the idea of taking it one more step. however, sparrow, when asked what my occupation is in some instances, i will say "artist," which is what i am. but on my recent application for my social security benefits (before the coffers run out) i put "photographer" because when i said to the SS lady over the phone, "artist," she said, wha...? so in this instance and for the sake of expediancy and ticking boxes i negated the whole argument...photographer as opposed to artist. being an artist is still for many who aren't, a hobbyist and not working at a real profession.
perhaps that is the next thread...is an artist a profession...?
...and sorry, "just about got a handle on it" was a throwaway line, NWM. i've always got one hand on it and both eyes open...
Last edited:
